"Defensive" BGP hijacking?
Mel Beckman
mel at beckman.org
Wed Sep 21 03:21:04 UTC 2016
While I was reading the krebsonsecurity.com article cited below, the site, hosted at Akamai address 72.52.7.144, became non responsive and now appears to be offline. Traceroutes stop before the Akamai-SWIPed border within Telia, as if blackholed (but adjacent IPs pass through to Akamai):
traceroute to krebsonsecurity.com (72.52.7.144), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 router1.sb.becknet.com (206.83.0.1) 0.771 ms 0.580 ms 0.342 ms
2 206-190-77-9.static.twtelecom.net (206.190.77.9) 0.715 ms 1.026 ms 0.744 ms
3 ae1-90g.ar7.lax1.gblx.net (67.17.75.18) 9.532 ms 6.567 ms 2.912 ms
4 ae10.edge1.losangeles9.level3.net (4.68.111.21) 2.919 ms 2.925 ms 2.904 ms
5 telia-level3-4x10g.losangeles.level3.net (4.68.70.130) 3.981 ms 3.567 ms 3.401 ms
6 sjo-b21-link.telia.net (62.115.116.40) 11.209 ms 11.140 ms 11.161 ms
7 * * *
8 * * *
9 * * *
10 * * *
Weird coincidence?
-mel beckman
> On Sep 20, 2016, at 6:46 PM, Hugo Slabbert <hugo at slabnet.com> wrote:
>
> Lucy, you got some (*serious*) 'splainin to do...
>
> http://research.dyn.com/2016/09/backconnects-suspicious-bgp-hijacks/
> http://krebsonsecurity.com/2016/09/ddos-mitigation-firm-has-history-of-hijacks/
>
> --
> Hugo Slabbert | email, xmpp/jabber: hugo at slabnet.com
> pgp key: B178313E | also on Signal
>
>> On Sun 2016-Sep-18 22:25:44 -0400, Tom Beecher <beecher at beecher.cc> wrote:
>>
>> So after reading your explanation of things...
>>
>> Your technical protections for your client proved sufficient to handle the
>> attack. You took OFFENSIVE action by hijacking the IP space. By your own
>> statements, it was only in response to threats against your company. You
>> were no longer providing DDoS protection to a client. You were exacting a
>> vendetta against someone who was being MEAN to you. Even if that person
>> probably deserved it, you still cannot do what was done.
>>
>> I appreciate the desire to want to protect friends and family from
>> anonymous threats, and also realize how ill equipped law enforcement
>> usually is while something like this is occurring.
>>
>> However, in my view, by taking the action you did, you have shown your
>> company isn't ready to be operating in the security space. Being threatened
>> by bad actors is a nominal part of doing business in the security space.
>> Unfortunately you didn't handle it well, and I think that will stick to you
>> for a long time.
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Bryant Townsend <bryant at backconnect.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> @ca & Matt - No, we do not plan to ever intentionally perform a
>>> non-authorized BGP hijack in the future.
>>>
>>> @Steve - Correct, the attack had already been mitigated. The decision to
>>> hijack the attackers IP space was to deal with their threats, which if
>>> carried through could have potentially lead to physical harm. Although the
>>> hijack gave us a unique insight into the attackers services, it was not a
>>> factor that influenced my decision.
>>>
>>> @Blake & Mel - We will likely cover some of these questions in a future
>>> blog post.
>>>
More information about the NANOG
mailing list