North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Fwd: Re: Digital Island sponsors DoS attempt
Paul, Some very valid points here. I would be interested to see just what the legal definition of "network intrusion" is on a federal level with all of the recent computer-crime and anti-terrorism legislation sailing through the legislative branch. Regards, Christopher ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: Paul A Vixie <[email protected]> Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 00:07:05 -0700 > >> Until there are standards and technology available to push subscriber >> policy to the edge of the network and beyond, the subscriber has >> explicitly accepted the overall terms and conditions by which the service >> is to be provided. > >no. i do not agree to receive a smurf attack, no matter whether my contract >with a nexthop fails to require them to prevent it from reaching me. > >> I am assuming in this discussion that when you refer to "benefit", you are >> in fact refering to "financial benefit". > >no, there's no known financial benefit to smurfing me, but the entities who >direct such attacks have positive motivation of some kind for doing so -- >and i assure you that this benefit to them, whatever it is, is far greater >than the benefit to me (which would have to be expressed in negative terms.) > >> > another test for "welcome" is "if everybody did this, would the recipient >> > be injured?" >> >> An interesting hypothesis, but it is seldom the case that the sender of >> traffic knows the details of the recipients infrastructure. > >i think it's reasonable for a smurfer to know that my infrastructure cannot >tolerate multiplicitous input streams from tens of thousands of sources. just >as a spammer can indeed know, without doubt, that if millions of senders, >all at once, decided to send me unsolicited nonpersonal e-mail, that my inbox >would not hold up well. > >no specific knowledge is required in those cases. in those cases and in other >cases where specific knowledge of my infrastructure is not necessary to >determine that the traffic would be "not welcome", then it ought not be sent. > >> > smurf, ddos in general, and spam also classify well by this criteria. it >> >> Smurf and DDOS attacks are precisely that - attacks. They are >> intentionally initiated for the purpose of disrupting infrastructure or >> service. They are illegal. > >in some places, they are illegal. in all places, they are "unwelcome." since >a sender of this (or any) traffic may not know the laws in force at the place >where the recipient host resides, the broader standard of "unwelcome" is more >widely applicable than the narrow standard of "illegal." > >of course, illegal things ought also not be done. but that'd be a new thread. > |