North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Historical
Re: Counter DoS
- From: Deepak Jain
- Date: Thu Mar 11 16:15:57 2004
If you wanted to do that, wouldn't the firewall just need
directed-broadcast left open or emulate similar behavior, or even
turning ip unreachables back on?
Flooding pipes accidentally is easy enough. Now people are selling
products to do it deliberately.
Yeesh.
I saw a license plate this week (Virginia -IWTFM) I thought that was clever.
Deepak
Gregory Taylor wrote:
Yes, lets allow the kiddies who already get away with as little work as
they can in order to produce the most destruction they can, the ability
to use these 'Security Systems' as a new tool for DoS attacks against
their enemies.
Scenerio:
Lets say my name is: l33th4x0r
I want to attack joeblow.cable.com because joeblow666 was upset that I
called his mother various inappropriate names.
I find IP for joeblow.cable.com to be 192.168.69.69
I find one of these 'security' systems, or multiple security systems,
and i decide to forge a TCP attack from 192.168.69.69 to these 'security
systems'.
These 'security systems' then, thinking joeblow is attacking their
network, will launch a retaliatory attack against the offender,
192.168.69.69 thus destroying his connectivity.
Kiddie 1 Joeblow 0 The Internet as a whole 0
Greg
Rachael Treu wrote:
Mmm. A firewall that lands you immediately in hot water with your
ISP and possibly in a courtroom, yourself. Hot.
Legality aside...
I don't imagine it would be too hard to filter these retaliatory
packets, either. I expect that this would be more wad-blowing
than cataclysm after the initial throes, made all the more ridiculous
by the nefarious realizing the new attack mechanism created by these
absurd boxen. A new point of failure and an amplifier rolled all
into one! Joy!
More buffoonery contributed to the miasma. Nice waste of time,
Symbiot. Thanks for the pollution, and shame on the dubious ZDnet
for perpetuating this garbage.
ymmv,
--ra
|