Death of the Internet, Film at 11
nanog at ics-il.net
Sat Oct 22 03:25:42 UTC 2016
Block one type of attack enough times and you've accomplished something. Because script kiddies are taking advantage of published exploits doesn't mean we stop setting passwords on things. You have to protect from them all.
No, no collateral damage. We discussed this a couple weeks ago and there was no credible evidence of collateral damage.
Intelligent Computing Solutions
----- Original Message -----
From: "Laszlo Hanyecz" <laszlo at heliacal.net>
To: nanog at nanog.org
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2016 7:52:42 PM
Subject: Re: Death of the Internet, Film at 11
On 2016-10-22 00:39, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> P.S. To all of you Ayn Rand devotees out there who still vociferously
> argue that it's nobody else's business how you monitor or police your
> "private" networks, and who still refuse to take even minimalist steps
> (like BCP 38), congratulations.
What does BCP38 have to do with this? All that does is block one
specific type of attack (and cause a lot of collateral damage). The IoT
devices do not need to spoof addresses - they can just generate attack
traffic directly. This is even better, because you can't cut those
eyeball addresses off - those are the same addresses your target
audience is using. If you cut off the eyeball networks there's not much
point to running an internet business website anymore.
More information about the NANOG