FUD: 15% of world's internet traffic hijacked

Marshall Eubanks tme at americafree.tv
Wed Nov 17 10:56:44 CST 2010


Anyone want to give me a quote for an AmericaFree.TV report ? Off-list, please.

Regards
Marshall


On Nov 17, 2010, at 11:51 AM, Ryan Rawdon wrote:

> 
> 
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 11:45:14 -0500, Bob Poortinga
> <bobp+nanog at webster.tsc.com> wrote:
>> This is starting to be picked up by mainstream media, but was was first
>> reported here (I believe):
>> 
>> 
> <http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=249>
>> 
>> "Cyber Experts Have Proof That China Has Hijacked U.S.-Based Internet
>> Traffic"
>> 
>> "For 18 minutes in April, China.s state-controlled telecommunications
>> company
>> hijacked 15 percent of the world.s Internet traffic, including data
> from
>> U.S.
>> military, civilian organizations and those of other U.S. allies."
>> 
>> This article, which quotes Dmitri Alperovitch of McAfee, is full of
> false
>> data as far as I can tell.  I assert that much less than 15%, probably
> on
>> the order of 1% to 2% (much less in the US) was actually diverted.  The
>> correct statement is that 15% of the world's network prefixes were
>> "hijacked",
>> but the impact was minimal in the US.
>> 
>> My concern is that this "report" will be presented to the US Congress
>> without
>> being refuted by experts in the know.
>> 
>> My request is that someone with some gravitas please issue a press
> release
>> setting the facts straight on this matter.  I have been in contact with
> Dan
>> Goodin at The Register but I'm just a lowly grunt with a small network.
> 
> Also worth pointing out that if this was a normal prefix hijack without
> them actually delivering the packets to the intended recipient (unlikely
> the case), then there would be very little TCP data seen.  A few packets on
> existing connections before they time out, and SYNs on new connection
> attempts.  Unless they were able to push the traffic back to another ISP
> which didn't see their originated routes, things would break more likely
> than be "routed via" the hijacking AS.
> 
> Ryan
> 
> 
> 





More information about the NANOG mailing list