North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
RE: How many backbones here are filtering the makelovenotspam scr eensaver site?
> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 4:14 PM > To: nanog list > Subject: Re: How many backbones here are filtering the makelovenotspam > scr eensaver site? > > > > on Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 08:58:03PM +0000, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2 Dec 2004, Steven Champeon wrote: > > > > > > > > on Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 02:56:29PM -0500, Hannigan, Martin wrote: > > > > Possibly. What will happen if the Lycos botnet gets hijacked? > > > > > > > > The conversations between the clients and the servers > don't appear > > > > to be keyed. If a million clients got owned, it would be the > > > > equivalent of an electronic Bubonic Plague with no antidote. > > > > > > You mean, like the existing botnets we already know exist but are > > > already under the control of spammers? > > > > > > What's the difference? Why is everyone so upset about > Lycos and nobody > > > seems to be doing much of anything about the /existing > botnets/, which > > > conservative estimates already put at anywhere from > 1-3K per botnet > > > to upwards of 1-5M hosts total? > > > > perhaps the difference is 'reponsible people' don't go out > and recruit > > botnets... Lycos, as a corporate entity with it's business > model dependent > > upon the health and wellbeing of the Internet would try to be > > 'responsible', or so I would have thought. > > I agree. I also think it's up to the companies providing the Internet > connectivity to the non-Lycos-"owned" botnets to prevent such activity > from affecting others. > > > arguing that there are murderers and rapists out there and > that 'nothing > > is being done' is hardly reason to become one yourself. > > I couldn't agree more that vigilantism isn't the answer. My earlier > remarks were directed to the shock and awe evident in the possibility > that - via Lycos - there might be, heaven forbid, /large numbers of > computers under the control of spammers, that could be used > in spamming > and abuse/. Can you direct me toward a singluar entity of 1MM bots controlled by a single master? > > All I was pointing out was that, surprise, surprise, there > already are. > So why anyone thinks Lycos' botnet being hacked is /any > different/ from > /the current situation/ is utterly beyond my ken. Why would > any spammer > bother to hack Lycos' botnet? They /already have their own/. I think you might be behind on what's going on in botland lately.