automatic rtbh trigger using flow data
michel.py at tsisemi.com
Fri Aug 31 00:14:50 UTC 2018
> Aaron Gould wrote :
> I'm really surprised that you all are doing this based on source ip, simply because I thought the distribution of botnet members around
> the world we're so extensive that I never really thought it possible to filter based on sources, if so I'd like to see the list too.
I emailed you. For years I ran it at home on a Cisco 1841, 100,000 BGP prefixes is nothing these days. I am not surprised that Joe pushes that to some CPEs.
> Even so, this would not stop the attacks from hitting my front door, my side of my Internet uplink...when paying for a 30 gigs CIR
> and paying double for megabits per second over that, up to the ceiling of 100 gig every bit that hits my front door over 30 gig
> would cost me extra, remotely triggering based on my victim IP address inside my network would be my solution to saving money.
I agree. If you want to get a real use of source blacklisting, to save bandwidth, you probably went to rent a U in a rack at your upstream(s) to block it there.
I never did it past 1GE, and I have never measured seriously the bandwidth it would save, would be curious to know.
I think the two approaches are complementary to each other though.
On Aug 30, 2018, at 6:43 PM, Michel Py <michel.py at tsisemi.com> wrote:
>> Joe Maimon wrote :
>> I use a bunch of scripts plus a supervisory sqlite3 database process all injecting into quagga
> I have the sqlite part planned, today I'm using a flat file :-( I know :-(
>> Also aimed at attacker sources. I feed it with honeypots and live servers, hooked into fail2ban and using independent host scripts. Not very sophisticated, the remotes use ssh executed commands to add/delete. I also setup a promiscuous ebgp RR so I can extend my umbrella to CPE with diverse connectivity.
> I would like to have your feed. How many attacker prefixes do you currently have ?
>> Using flow data, that sounds like an interesting direction to take this into, so thank you!
> The one thing we can share here is the attacker prefixes. The victim prefixes are unique to each of us but I expect our attacker prefixes to be very close.
> TSI Disclaimer: This message and any files or text attached to it are intended only for the recipients named above and contain information that may be confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not forward, copy, use or otherwise disclose this communication or the information contained herein. In the event you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, and then delete all copies of it from your system. Thank you!...
More information about the NANOG