Yup.. they're all "ANY" requests. The varying TTLs indicates that they're most likely spoofed. We are also now seeing similar traffic from RFC1918 "source" addresses trying to ingress our network (but being stopped by our border filters).
Looks like the kiddies are playing.... On 2 Dec 2011, at 16:02, Ryan Rawdon wrote: > > On Nov 30, 2011, at 3:12 PM, Drew Weaver wrote: > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: rob.vercoute...@kpn.com [mailto:rob.vercoute...@kpn.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 3:05 PM >> To: matlo...@exempla.org; richard.bar...@gmail.com; >> andrew.wall...@rocketmail.com >> Cc: nanog@nanog.org; lel...@taranta.discpro.org >> Subject: RE: Recent DNS attacks from China? >> >> Yes it is, but the problem is that our servers are "attacking" the so called >> source address. All the answers are going back to the "source". It is huge >> amplification attacks. (some sort of smurf if you want) The ip addresses are >> spoofed (We did a capture and saw all different ttl's so coming from behind >> different hops) And yes we saw the ANY queries for all the domains. >> >> I still wonder how it is still possible that ip addresses can be spoofed >> nowadays > > We're a smaller shop and started receiving these queries last night, roughly > 1000 queries per minute or less. We're seeing that the source (victim) > addresses are changing every few minutes, the TTLs vary within a given source > address, and while most of the source/victim addresses have been Chinese we > are seeing a few which are not, such as 74.125.90.83 (Google). The queries > are coming in to ns1.traffiq.com (perhaps ns2 also, I haven't checked) and > are for traffiq.com/ANY which unfortunately gives a 492 byte response. > > >> >> ================= >> >> Rob, >> >> Transit providers can bill for the denial of service traffic and they claim >> it's too expensive to run URPF because of the extra lookup. >> >> -Drew >>
