On Sun 2016-Sep-25 17:01:55 -0400, John R. Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote:
https://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/01_5.pdf The attack is triggered by a few spoofs somewhere in the world. It is not feasible to stop this.That paper is about reflection attacks. From what I've read, this was not a reflection attack. The IoT devices are infected with botware which sends attack traffic directly. Address spoofing is not particularly useful for controlling botnets.
But that's not only remaining use of source address spoofing in direct attacks, no? Even if reflection and amplification are not used, spoofing can still be used for obfuscation.
For example, the Conficker botnet generated pseudo-random domain names where the bots looked for control traffic.Please see https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc6561.txtUh, yes, we're familiar with that. We even know the people who wrote it. It could use an update for IoT since I get the impression that in many cases the only way for a nontechnical user to fix the infection is to throw the device away.Regards, John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
-- Hugo Slabbert | email, xmpp/jabber: h...@slabnet.com pgp key: B178313E | also on Signal
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
