The DDoS problem... handled wrong by the governments?
If I look on the Homepage of the National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC) http://www.nipc.gov/ (part of the FBI), I see there are Advisory's about the diffrent Distributed denial of service tools. But I think the way how its handled is really wrong. Instead of "enforcing" the people who are used as amplifiers to fix their networks there are tools to find such Denial of Service Tools on a system. I think this Virus-Scanner acting is kinda useless since the broadcast amplifiers are still existing, and the network admins of small ISP's or small company's are just to lazy to upgrade their network or don't know how (with loose of their bandwidth). In germany I heard there is a Task Force to fix this problem by the government too but they also want to fix the problem also by a detection of those easy new writeable tools. In a scenario coming up the next years there will be cellulars who flood someone, or a lot of DSL smurf kids... this is really sad, cause e.g. a small company would just get attacked than by a frustrated customer. Best Regards, Thomas Thomas Kuiper| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.tobit.com __ Core Development | ICQ #8345483 | /__/\ Tobit Software | PGP Key on Request| ask your server. \__\/
Cable as Firewall?!
I'm at the end of all my knowledge and I can't find any explaination for the following issue. So I hope anyone of you Network Guru's can give me an idea why this would happen. I have this scenario in a Network: A couple of PC's are connected to a 3300 Switch made by 3COM which are connected using 3 metres long TP (normal CAT5) cables. The stations have diffrent OS'es like Linux and Novell Netware. However the problem seems to be the cable not the operating systems. I use diffrent protocols over this network to establish a communication, like IPX and of course TCP/IP. Now the weird thing is if I use one cable, IPX data comes through, but no TCP/IP traffic. If I exchange the cables again, both TCP/IP and IPX work. I tried with tcpdump (filtering UDP and diffrent ethernet protocols), but I only get IPX through with this cable! I used diffrent stuff to test this cable, like fluke 2000 dsp pro and fluke 1000 dsp and a lot of diffrent volt/ohm testers. The cable seems to function ok. I tried other switches such as 3COM 3300, HP pro curve 4000, DLink 10/100, but I only get IPX through with that cable. This cable doesn't have a chip and ethernet is ethernet, no? I would really like to know what makes this cable diffrent. Its not the operating systems since I tried some Windows and other Netware 4.x server too. Both only get IPX through it. How can a cable filter specific ethernet protocols? Best Regards, Thomas Kuiper Thomas Kuiper| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.tobit.com __ Core Development | TK3680-RIPE | /__/\ Tobit Software | ICQ #8345483| ask your server. \__\/
IPv6 private adresses space
Is there such a thing for IPv6? (like the 192.168.x.x and 172.10.x.x) in IPv4? Gruss/Regards, Thomas Thomas Kuiper| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.tobit.com __ Core Development | TK3680-RIPE | /__/\ Tobit Software GmbH | ICQ #8345483| ask your server. \__\/
Re-2: BayStack 650 driver for FreeBSD3.3+PAO
Oh hell,
next time put up a [EMAIL PROTECTED] list please! :)
> For those who are not reading [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>
> > I've just ported Bill Sommerfeld's NetBSD driver ('awi') for BayStack 650
> > to FreeBSD 3.3+PAO.
>
> Please note that this version of driver does not handle roaming correctly.
> Since there are so high density APs in the IETF hotel,
> you will experience loss of connectivety sooner or later with
> "no recent beaconf from ; rescanning" message.
>
> Power off the PC-card and power on again through "pccardc power" command,
> or re-insertion of the card might help you :-)
>
Gruss/Regards,
Thomas
Thomas Kuiper| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.tobit.com __
Core Development | TK3680-RIPE | /__/\
Tobit Software GmbH | ICQ #8345483| ask your server. \__\/
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
