UDP port 80 DDoS attack
steve.bertrand at gmail.com
Sun Feb 5 21:40:19 CST 2012
On 2012.02.05 22:30, Keegan Holley wrote:
> 2012/2/5 Steve Bertrand <steve.bertrand at gmail.com
> On 2012.02.05 20 <tel:2012.02.05%2020>:37, Keegan Holley wrote:
> Source RTBH often falls victim to rapidly changing or spoofed
> source IP"s.
> It also isn't as widely supported as it should be. I never said
> DDOS was
> hopeless, there just aren't a wealth of defenses against it.
> This is so very easily automated. Even if you don't actually want to
> trigger the routes automatically, finding the sources you want to
> blackhole is as simple as a monitor port, tcpdump and some basic Perl.
> This is still vulnerable to spoofing which could cause you to filter
> legitimate traffic and make the problem worse. Not saying that S/RTBH
> is a bad idea. RTBH is effective and a great idea just not very elegant.
Agreed. Diligence does play a role. However, the times I have
implemented and used (s/)RTBH, I thought it was most elegant. I love its
simplicity and effectiveness.
> ...and as far as this not having been deployed in many ISPs (per
> your next message)... their mitigation strategies should be asked up
> front, and if they don't have any (or don't know what you speak of),
> find a new ISP.
> You sometimes have to weigh the pro's and cons. You can't always pick
> the guys with the coolest knobs.
Agreed. But to me, DDOS mitigation is not just a cool knob. If my ISP
can help mitigate a 1Gb onslaught so my 100Mb pipe isn't overwhelmed,
that's more functional than cool. Ranks right up there with IPv6 ;)
More information about the NANOG