huawei

Michael Thomas mike at mtcc.com
Fri Jun 14 00:39:18 UTC 2013


On 06/13/2013 05:28 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
> Bill,
>
> Certainly everything you said is correct and at the same time is not useful
> for the kinds traffic interception that's been implied.  20 packets of
> random traffic capture is extraordinarily unlikely to contain anything of
> interest and eve if you do happen to get a juicy fragment your chances of
> getting more ate virtually nil.  An effective system must either capture
> and transmit large numbers of packets or have a command and control system
> in order to target smaller captures against a shifting list of addresses.
> Either of those things are very detectable.   I've spent a significant
> amount of time looking at botnet traffic which has the same kind of
> requirements.
>

I think you're having a failure of imagination that anything less than
a massive amount of information sent back to the attacker could be
useful. I think there are lots and lots of things that could be extremely
useful that would only require a simple message with "got here" back to the
attacker if the "got here" condition was sufficiently interesting. Spying doesn't
have the same motivations as typical botnets for illicit commerce.

Mike




More information about the NANOG mailing list