Dear All

I released a bit of a blog article last week about filtering NTP request 
traffic via packet size which might be of interest !

So far I known of an unknown tool makes a default request packet of 50 bytes in 
size
ntpdos.py makes a default request packet of 60 bytes in size
ntp_monlist.py makes a default request packet of 234 bytes in size
monlist from ntpdc makes a default request packet of 234 bytes in size

In contrast a normal NTP request for a time sync is about 90 bytes in size

More information and some graphs can be found here  
http://www.micron21.com/ddos-ntp.php

Kindest Regards

        
James Braunegg
P:  1300 769 972  |  M:  0488 997 207 |  D:  (03) 9751 7616
E:   james.braun...@micron21.com  |  ABN:  12 109 977 666   
W:  www.micron21.com/ddos-protection   T: @micron21



This message is intended for the addressee named above. It may contain 
privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient 
of this message you must not use, copy, distribute or disclose it to anyone 
other than the addressee. If you have received this message in error please 
return the message to the sender by replying to it and then delete the message 
from your computer.

-----Original Message-----
From: joel jaeggli [mailto:joe...@bogus.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 7:31 AM
To: Royce Williams; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Filter NTP traffic by packet size?

On 2/23/14, 12:11 PM, Royce Williams wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Royce Williams <ro...@techsolvency.com> 
> wrote:
>> Newb question ... other than retrofitting, what stands in the way of 
>> making BCP38 a condition of peering?

Peering is frequently but harldy exclusively on a best effort basis, e.g. you 
agree to exchange traffic, but also agree to hold each other harmless if 
something bad happens. that's any easy enough contract for most entities to 
enter into

> In other words ... if it's a problem of awareness, could upstreams 
> automate warning their downstreams?  What about teaching RADb to 
> periodically test for BCP38 compliance, send soft warnings (with links 
> to relevant pages on www.bcp38.info), and publish stats?
> 
> Continuing my naïveté ...what if upstreams required BCP38 compliance 
> before updating BGP filters?

my upstreams adjust their filters when I update radb.

> This would require a soft rollout --
> we'd have to give them a few months' warning to not interfere with 
> revenue streams -- but it sounds like nothing's going to change until 
> it starts hitting the pocketbooks.
> 
> Royce
> 
> 



Reply via email to