Photographs of Iraqi telecomunication facilities
The Washington Post has on-line photographs of several of the major telecommunication facilities in Bahgdad. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/fogofwar/index/photos.htm The Washington Times is reporting that US had infilitrated the main telecommunication exchange in Baghdad, and wiretapped some of the circuits. Which may explain why it wasn't attacked earlier.
The Cidr Report
This report has been generated at Fri Mar 28 21:50:09 2003 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of an AS4637 (Reach) router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org/as4637 for a current version of this report.
Recent Table History
Date PrefixesCIDR Agg
21-03-03120815 86434
22-03-03120741 86424
23-03-03120589 86556
24-03-03120679 86593
25-03-03120712 86324
26-03-03120739 86276
27-03-03120877 86281
28-03-03120855 86349
AS Summary
14836 Number of ASes in routing system
5851 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix
1555 Largest number of prefixes announced by an AS
AS701 : ALTERNET-AS UUNET Technologies, Inc.
73048064 Largest address span announced by an AS (/32s)
AS568 : SUMNET-AS DISO-UNRRA
Aggregation Summary
The algorithm used in this report proposes aggregation only
when there is a precise match using the AS path, so as
to preserve traffic transit policies. Aggregation is also
proposed across non-advertised address space ('holes').
--- 28Mar03 ---
ASnumNetsNow NetsAggr NetGain % Gain Description
Table 121000863623463828.6% All ASes
AS3908 1048 537 51148.8% SUPERNETASBLK SuperNet, Inc.
AS18566 509 14 49597.2% COVAD Covad Communications
AS4151 585 107 47881.7% USDA-1 USDA
AS701 1555 1115 44028.3% ALTERNET-AS UUNET
Technologies, Inc.
AS7843 599 198 40166.9% ADELPHIA-AS Adelphia Corp.
AS7018 1346 952 39429.3% ATT-INTERNET4 ATT WorldNet
Services
AS4323 561 176 38568.6% TW-COMM Time Warner
Communications, Inc.
AS1221 1109 813 29626.7% ASN-TELSTRA Telstra Pty Ltd
AS1239 968 688 28028.9% SPRINTLINK Sprint
AS6197 476 202 27457.6% BATI-ATL BellSouth Network
Solutions, Inc
AS22927 286 14 27295.1% AR-TEAR2-LACNIC TELEFONICA DE
ARGENTINA
AS6198 450 182 26859.6% BATI-MIA BellSouth Network
Solutions, Inc
AS705534 268 26649.8% ASN-ALTERNET UUNET
Technologies, Inc.
AS4355 382 116 26669.6% ERMS-EARTHLNK EARTHLINK, INC
AS1 685 429 25637.4% GNTY-1 Genuity
AS4814 267 15 25294.4% CHINANET-BEIJING-AP China
Telecom (Group)
AS2386 499 249 25050.1% INS-AS ATT Data
Communications Services
AS17676 235 28 20788.1% GIGAINFRA XTAGE CORPORATION
AS22291 239 39 20083.7% CHARTER-LA Charter
Communications
AS27364 265 65 20075.5% ACS-INTERNET Armstrong Cable
Services
AS7132 674 475 19929.5% SBIS-AS SBC Internet Services
- Southwest
AS4134 316 123 19361.1% CHINANET-BACKBONE
No.31,Jin-rong Street
AS22773 1978 18995.9% CCINET-2 Cox Communications
Inc. Atlanta
AS209526 339 18735.6% ASN-QWEST Qwest
AS690503 316 18737.2% MERIT-AS-27 Merit Network Inc.
AS6347 373 193 18048.3% DIAMOND SAVVIS Communications
Corporation
AS3561 520 344 17633.8% CWUSA Cable Wireless USA
AS2048 259 87 17266.4% LANET-1 State of Louisiana
AS17557 375 214 16142.9% PKTELECOM-AS-AP Pakistan
Telecom
AS6140 290 140 15051.7% IMPSAT-USA ImpSat
Total 16631 8446 818549.2% Top 30 total
Please see http://www.cidr-report.org for the full report
Copies of this report are mailed to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Using Policy Routing to stop DoS attacks
We could ask Cisco and Juniper to add a way of 'artificially' remove networks from the CEF table (with an ACL or so). That way, even with loose-RPF, the packet will be dropped based on source-address at the ingress without consuming CPU. Or maybe such a feature already exist André At 09:06 25.03.2003 -0500, Christian Liendo wrote: Looking for advice. I am sorry if this was discussed before, but I cannot seem to find this. I want to use source routing as a way to stop a DoS rather than use access-lists. In other words, lets say I know the source IP (range of IPs) of an attack and they do not change. If the destination stays the same I can easily null route the destination, but what if the destination constantly changes. So I have to work based on the source IP. Depending on the router and the code, if I implement an access-list then the CPU utilization shoots through the roof. What I would like to try and do is use source routing to route that traffic to null. I figured it would be easier on the router than an access-list. Has anyone else tried this successfully on ciscos and junipers? Is it easier on the CPU than access-lists? Is there a link I cannot find on cisco or google? Thanks Christian Liendo - Andre Chapuis IP+ Engineering Swisscom Ltd Genfergasse 14 3050 Bern +41 31 893 89 61 [EMAIL PROTECTED] CCIE #6023 --
is this true or... ?
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=8595 -- Tomas Daniska systems engineer Tronet Computer Networks Plynarenska 5, 829 75 Bratislava, Slovakia tel: +421 2 58224111, fax: +421 2 58224199 A transistor protected by a fast-acting fuse will protect the fuse by blowing first.
DNS dDos Attack!
I am sorry if this has come up before, but it seems that one of our name servers is under some sort of dDos attack. It seems to be receiving millions of queries form spoofed IPs, and it is spending all of it's time sending back icmp unreachables. It is running bind 4.31 under BSD 4.62STABLE Help! Thanks, Dan.
Re: DNS dDos Attack!
Personally I'd blackhole the traffic at the entry point and work on finding the origin. Assuming its only one of your name servers you can run with one dead... On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Dan Armstrong wrote: I am sorry if this has come up before, but it seems that one of our name servers is under some sort of dDos attack. It seems to be receiving millions of queries form spoofed IPs, and it is spending all of it's time sending back icmp unreachables. It is running bind 4.31 under BSD 4.62STABLE Help! Thanks, Dan.
Re: is this true or... ?
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tomas Daniska writes: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=8595 freedom-to-tinker.com, which is the source cited by your link, is indeed Ed Felten's. And I trust Ed. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me) http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of Firewalls book)
Re: DNS dDos Attack!
Sorry, I lied. We are running 8.34Release What I cannot figure out is why *our* name server is sending out ICMP unreachables. The incoming dns queries are coming from random destinations I have blocked icmp 3 incoming from that DMZ as not to overwhelm the CEF in any other routers, but whoever is doing this has this name server at it's knees. Dan. Eric Whitehill wrote: Dan: Can you updated your version of BIND and install some acls? -Eric On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Dan Armstrong wrote: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:20:20 -0500 From: Dan Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: DNS dDos Attack! I am sorry if this has come up before, but it seems that one of our name servers is under some sort of dDos attack. It seems to be receiving millions of queries form spoofed IPs, and it is spending all of it's time sending back icmp unreachables. It is running bind 4.31 under BSD 4.62STABLE Help! Thanks, Dan.
Re: DNS dDos Attack!
Dan, Might I suggest a few things. 1) If you truly want the nanog community to help, perhaps you wish to post the Ip being attacked as well as a series of sources, including the names of your upstreams involved as their security teams haven't helped you and that's the reason for the post. 2) You probally want to install an icmp rate-limit to help mitigate this attack. By saying CEF, I assume you are using a Cisco router. Here's a quick example: interface foo rate-limit input access-group 2000 1536000 20 20 conform-action transm it exceed-action drop access-list 2000 permit icmp any any That should drop the icmp down to around a T1s worth. - Jared On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 09:28:48AM -0500, Dan Armstrong wrote: Sorry, I lied. We are running 8.34Release What I cannot figure out is why *our* name server is sending out ICMP unreachables. The incoming dns queries are coming from random destinations I have blocked icmp 3 incoming from that DMZ as not to overwhelm the CEF in any other routers, but whoever is doing this has this name server at it's knees. Dan. Eric Whitehill wrote: Dan: Can you updated your version of BIND and install some acls? -Eric On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Dan Armstrong wrote: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:20:20 -0500 From: Dan Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: DNS dDos Attack! I am sorry if this has come up before, but it seems that one of our name servers is under some sort of dDos attack. It seems to be receiving millions of queries form spoofed IPs, and it is spending all of it's time sending back icmp unreachables. It is running bind 4.31 under BSD 4.62STABLE Help! Thanks, Dan. -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from [EMAIL PROTECTED] clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
Re: Using Policy Routing to stop DoS attacks
Andre, Actually it already exists. But to do it, you need to ensure you have loose-RPF checking enabled and null-route the network you want the data dropped for. Since a null-route is considered by loose-RPF checking as a bad route, it will drop the data for you. thanks, charles On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 03:08:44PM +0100, Andre Chapuis wrote: We could ask Cisco and Juniper to add a way of 'artificially' remove networks from the CEF table (with an ACL or so). That way, even with loose-RPF, the packet will be dropped based on source-address at the ingress without consuming CPU. Or maybe such a feature already exist André At 09:06 25.03.2003 -0500, Christian Liendo wrote: Looking for advice. I am sorry if this was discussed before, but I cannot seem to find this. I want to use source routing as a way to stop a DoS rather than use access-lists. In other words, lets say I know the source IP (range of IPs) of an attack and they do not change. If the destination stays the same I can easily null route the destination, but what if the destination constantly changes. So I have to work based on the source IP. Depending on the router and the code, if I implement an access-list then the CPU utilization shoots through the roof. What I would like to try and do is use source routing to route that traffic to null. I figured it would be easier on the router than an access-list. Has anyone else tried this successfully on ciscos and junipers? Is it easier on the CPU than access-lists? Is there a link I cannot find on cisco or google? Thanks Christian Liendo - Andre Chapuis IP+ Engineering Swisscom Ltd Genfergasse 14 3050 Bern +41 31 893 89 61 [EMAIL PROTECTED] CCIE #6023 --
Re: DNS dDos Attack!
--On Friday, March 28, 2003 09:28:48 AM -0500 Dan Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry, I lied. We are running 8.34Release What I cannot figure out is why *our* name server is sending out ICMP unreachables. The incoming dns queries are coming from random destinations Are you sure the inbound attack packets are really valid queries, or are they responses? I ask because in the classic DDoS-via-nameservers attack, the victim will receive answers from a slew of other nameservers and send out ICMP unreachables. See http://www.cert.org/incident_notes/IN-2000-04.html Kevin
Fw: Freedom to Tinker: Use a Firewall, Go to Jail
From another mailing list; Not being from the US, I have very little idea if this is a reality based simply on this story... - Original Message - From: Dave Feustel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 1:31 PM Subject: Freedom to Tinker: Use a Firewall, Go to Jail Use a Firewall, Go to Jail The states of Massachusetts and Texas are preparing to consider bills that apparently are intended to extend the national Digital Millennium Copyright Act. (TX bill; MA bill) The bills are obviously related to each other somehow, since they are textually similar. Here is one example of the far-reaching harmful effects of these bills. Both bills would flatly ban the possession, sale, or use of technologies that conceal from a communication service provider ... the existence or place of origin or destination of any communication. Your ISP is a communcation service provider, so anything that concealed the origin or destination of any communication from your ISP would be illegal -- with no exceptions. http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/archives/000336.html
Re: Freedom to Tinker: Use a Firewall, Go to Jail
Not being from the US, I have very little idea if this is a reality based simply on this story... And having left a couple of unread messages in my nanog folder, I noticed this was raised in another thread. Apologies for double posting. Peter
Re: is this true or... ?
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=8595 While they are at it, it would be nice if a carefully applied lobbying could transform that into something that made more sense security-wise. After dealing with one too many DDoS attacks, I would gladly mantain storage of a few weeks worth of netflow data for security uses if everybody was (a) required to do the same, and (b) required to assist when an attack is detected. Hey, one can be optimistic from time to time. Before flames begin, let me say that I hold no hope of something remotely similar to the above coming true in the foreseeable future. Nor do I like the idea of the Internet being ruled by laws, which in addition are written by people without a clue, in the first place. -- Alfredo Sola, after receiving an e-mail from an administrator of a smurf amplifier claiming that we, the attacked party, are actually the attackers.
Re: Verizon mail server on MAPS RSS list
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Josh Gentry wrote: We've got customers trying to receive email from people using Verizon for Internet acess, and we are rejecting that mail because out013pub.verizon.net [206.46.170.44] is on the MAPS RSS list. Can't pull up the MAPS RSS website at the moment to check why. Anyone know contact info for Verizon for this kind of issue? This server is an open relay. It's been on RSS since Sept. It's also on njabl.org, and their web site is responding more quickly. Verizon has been contacted many times about this and either doesn't care or just doesn't know how to fix it. In fact, the MAPS page has a specific message that they must be contacted by a Verizon rep to have it removed. It will relay for anyone who gives a @verizon.net return address. == Chris Candreva -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- (914) 967-7816 WestNet Internet Services of Westchester http://www.westnet.com/
Re: is this true or... ?
How do like this recent rounds of bureaucrats attempting to make lawsh-r-m ? A: IMHO:This should be officially declared, out of their jurisdiction. of such small municipalities... it is sort of like having a Nurse make the judgment call during a delicate heart surgery. It takes a specialist, really There is a reason most laws that -do- exist are at a Federal level...(in the U.S.)... Match the Law with the Scope of the problem. B: Most of these laws make about as much sense as the Old Blue Laws, that we are just now getting around to repealing.. (Can't have sex with the wife on Sunday) Why create more idiotic laws ? After our region voted all out (7-0) to pass laws outlawing Spam. and created a bill that would incarcerate about half of the daily usenet posters, and network operators, for routine operations... and outlaw anonymity on the net... Someone showed them how to use Spam Assassin. It made Front Page News. * dohh! * The real solution lie in the IEEE, IETF, and/or the IESG, and possibly will be included in IPV6 The interim solution lie in software packages, and Firewalls And, fundamentally, if the USA Patriot Act didn't teach us at least one thing, it should have taught us to NOT attempt to -=legislate=- the value of Pi to 4.0. It simply should be out of their jurisdiction, since the physical reality is beyond their ability to change, and/or comprehend. Besides, JMHO, don't make a -law-, per se... make it actionable. ;) Why send idiots to jail, and ruin their future When you can simply make them reimburse you for your trouble ? They remain productive members of society, and you are recompensed for your troubles.. ..Giving you that warm fuzzy glow of Retribution, you so deserve. :D Its not like we don't have -=Entire States=- going into bankruptcy because the attempted application of the Police State that is the wet-dream of the current administration, -=didn't=- overburden the system You See, you can only incarcerate up to a certain percentage of the community, until the burden to support the incarcerated over-whelms the remaining free members of that society. Not to mention, certain types of laws will result in young people being exposed, and converted, to the wrong element, early in life. We would be better off -=not=- exposing them to such treatment in the first place.. ( Most hacking law breakers are juveniles, when it comes to the internetcuriosity and the Cat, eh ?) Adding -more- un-enforceable laws, that not only over-burden the system further, but permanently modify the behavior of countless numbers of people for the worse, over relatively trivial issue's... will eventually end up as Blue Law, a waste of our time, and money. Fundamentally Detrimental to the Very System, itself. Steven M. Bellovin wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steven M. Be llovin writes: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steven M. B e llovin writes: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Toma s Daniska writes: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=8595 freedom-to-tinker.com, which is the source cited by your link, is indeed Ed Felten's. And I trust Ed. It's been pointed out to me that the Texas bill, at least (I found it at http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/cqcgi?CQ_SESSION_KEY=NUTHYMWBJWUFCQ_QU ERY_HANDLE=126838CQ_CUR_DOCUMENT=4CQ_SAVE[bill_number]=HB02121INTCQ_TLO_DOC _TEXT=YES but there may be session state -- it's bill HB 2121) only criminalizes the conduct if it's done with intent to harm or defraud a communications service provider. Now, given the anti-NAT and anti-VPN tendencies of some broadband ISPs, I'm not necessarily thrilled, but it's not quite the same as was originally suggested. After talking to Ed Felten and reading more of the bill, I'm no longer certain about my clarification. The originally-cited text is in Section 6; the part about intent to cause harm is in Section 4. Section 6 also criminalizes concealing origin or destination information from lawful authority -- use crypto, go to jail? --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me) http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of Firewalls book)
OT: FW: About your using mailer
Is anyone else getting this junk regarding the list? And can we put a stop to it? Granted in a perfect world everyone runs software throughout the entire enterprise that is on the bleeding edge of the latest proposed standards, but some of us only have so big of a budget. --- Michael Damm, MIS Department, Irwin Research Development V: 509.457.5080 x298 F: 509.577.0301 E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Miyoko Shioda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 9:30 AM To: Mike Damm Subject: Re: About your using mailer dear Mike Damm, Sorry, I am talking about NANOG mailing list. Please please change your MUA in mainling list... Regards, On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:28:17 -0800 Mike Damm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What mailing list are you talking about? --- Michael Damm, MIS Department, Irwin Research Development V: 509.457.5080 x298 F: 509.577.0301 E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Miyoko Shioda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 5:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: About your using mailer Hi, I read your messages in mailing list. Your using mailer(MUA) does not seems to support In-Reply-To nor References field. These field is defined in RFC-2822. If these field does not be outputted when you reply, tree construction will be break every time you post the messages to mailing list. It is inconvenient for the others. Please please change your mailer for the public good, at least when you post to mailing list. Today almost mailers support these field(at least In-Reply-To) except for the following mailers. MSN hotmail Exchange Server = 2000 (Exchange Server 2003 will support In-Reply-To.) Lotus Notes 6.0 MIME-Tools AOL mailer dtmail Novell GroupWise foxmail regards, -- Miyoko Shioda [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Miyoko Shioda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: is this true or... ?
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, blitz wrote: If it is, it reveals how utterly clueless our legislators really are At 15:09 3/28/03 +0100, you wrote: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=8595 Uhm, I don't think you can blame the legislators for this one. Almost identical legislation being introduced in six different states? I suspect an outside influence was involved in drafting the proposed legislation.
Re: [OT: FW: About your using mailer]
i got one too - i was going to ask if anyone else minded that my mua was fully rfc 2822 compliant (before telling usa.net that they have to rewrite their webmail app)... i like how the examples cited are crap-html/mime oriented (msn, exchange, and aol?) Mike Damm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is anyone else getting this junk regarding the list? And can we put a stop to it? Granted in a perfect world everyone runs software throughout the entire enterprise that is on the bleeding edge of the latest proposed standards, but some of us only have so big of a budget. --- Michael Damm, MIS Department, Irwin Research Development V: 509.457.5080 x298 F: 509.577.0301 E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Miyoko Shioda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 9:30 AM To: Mike Damm Subject: Re: About your using mailer dear Mike Damm, Sorry, I am talking about NANOG mailing list. Please please change your MUA in mainling list... Regards, On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:28:17 -0800 Mike Damm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What mailing list are you talking about? --- Michael Damm, MIS Department, Irwin Research Development V: 509.457.5080 x298 F: 509.577.0301 E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Miyoko Shioda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 5:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: About your using mailer Hi, I read your messages in mailing list. Your using mailer(MUA) does not seems to support In-Reply-To nor References field. These field is defined in RFC-2822. If these field does not be outputted when you reply, tree construction will be break every time you post the messages to mailing list. It is inconvenient for the others. Please please change your mailer for the public good, at least when you post to mailing list. Today almost mailers support these field(at least In-Reply-To) except for the following mailers. MSN hotmail Exchange Server = 2000 (Exchange Server 2003 will support In-Reply-To.) Lotus Notes 6.0 MIME-Tools AOL mailer dtmail Novell GroupWise foxmail regards, -- Miyoko Shioda [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Miyoko Shioda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Walk with me through the Universe, And along the way see how all of us are Connected. Feast the eyes of your Soul, On the Love that abounds. In all places at once, seemingly endless, Like your own existence. - Stephen Hawking -
Re: FW: About your using mailer
Kris Foster wrote: Is anyone else getting this junk regarding the list? And can we put a stop to it? Got the same message. I think Miyoko's fight should be with the vendors, not the poor people who are subjected to the whims of an IS department. In the beginning, there was The Word. And The Word was Content-type: text/plain Jeff
69/8 revisited
I've setup a little web site with the results of my ping sweep to attempt to locate as many networks as possible with outdated bogon filters. http://69box.atlantic.net/ If you can't reach that, fix your network...or use the alternative non-69/8 hostname http://not69box.atlantic.net/ Number of IP's currently known to have 69/8 filter issues: 683 Number of /24 networks's currently known to have 69/8 filter issues: 511 Check out the site and see if you recognize any of the IPs. You can test/remove IPs if they've become reachable, or test/add IPs if they have 69/8 filter issues. -- Jon Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED]| I route System Administrator| therefore you are Atlantic Net| _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
Allegiance telecom boston colo down?
Heya, We've got a business unit hosted in Allegiance Telecom's boston colo that's been down for a bit and all they can get out of Allegiance is um... we're not sure what's going on. I'm guessing that boston.com, which is also down, is affected by this... If you go to the Allegiance Telecom looking glass (http://nitrous.digex.net/mae/mae-lg.html) and enter an IP from their colo you get a network not in table so my guess is that the colo is FUBAR... Anyone know whats up? Eric :)
RE: FW: About your using mailer
In the beginning, there was The Word. And The Word was Content-type: text/plain My bad.. Kris
Re 7/8 - was Re: 69/8 revisited
Speaking of that, has 7/8 been allocated? Doesn't show it on IANA's list but I saw several routes come in (7.1/16 comes to mind) a few days ago. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 12:36 Subject: 69/8 revisited I've setup a little web site with the results of my ping sweep to attempt to locate as many networks as possible with outdated bogon filters. http://69box.atlantic.net/ If you can't reach that, fix your network...or use the alternative non-69/8 hostname http://not69box.atlantic.net/ Number of IP's currently known to have 69/8 filter issues: 683 Number of /24 networks's currently known to have 69/8 filter issues: 511 Check out the site and see if you recognize any of the IPs. You can test/remove IPs if they've become reachable, or test/add IPs if they have 69/8 filter issues. -- Jon Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED]| I route System Administrator| therefore you are Atlantic Net| _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
Re: is this true or... ?
Sean Donelan wrote: On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, blitz wrote: If it is, it reveals how utterly clueless our legislators really are At 15:09 3/28/03 +0100, you wrote: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=8595 Uhm, I don't think you can blame the legislators for this one. Almost identical legislation being introduced in six different states? I suspect an outside influence was involved in drafting the proposed legislation. Now, -that's- using your noodle. With just a little investigative work, we should be able to find out which of the Righteous Vigilante Right was running around championing this concept Usually, you find someone who is a member of a politically active group, perhaps a church group, or lobbying group, who has a child, and walked in upon him/her opening up a pornographic spam And then, with tears streaming from their eyes, knowing their innocent darling Pat has been corrupted, and -damned- for all eternity... They become determined to lead us all to the One True Path of righteousness... The Universal WorldWide Creation of Pat's Law. (Pause for Hysterical Sobbing for the Now Damned soul) (Que: Triumphant Angelic Music) With Such bogus Rhetoric as their foundation, as: You want our children to be -=safe=-, don't you ? (Scratch Record, stop music abruptly!) Most people are dumbfounded when encountering such Rhetoric... for some reason, they can't seperate the answer to the logical trap posed in the wording that they have stepped into, from the -=real=- answer to the problem Most people internally cognate the answer Yes to the above question, and then can't understand why they find themselves agreeing with the RVR's proselytizer * dohh * I.E: Do you beat your wife, often ?! :* The real way to combat such morally reprehensible manipulation of logic of the verbal exchange is to identify the underlying fallacy. So, instead of Yes, answer: Of course we do, Schmuck, that is why we oppose such a negligent abuse of power and the subsequent creation of ludicrous laws... by emotionally blinded idiots, such as yourself... and seek a -real- solution, instead of attempting to legislate something you simply don't understand, ineffectively. Yup. Find the Fallacy, and soon one understands why the RVR's really should seek -=therapy=-, not political office. So, in conclusion: You want to be Safe -and- Free, don't you ? :P .Richard. Historical Quote: Any resemblance between this post, and current political practices, are purely intentional. = So, has Babylon Fallen, Yet ? ;)
Re: Re 7/8 - was Re: 69/8 revisited
Seems like 7/8 was allocated to dept. of defense for quite a bit of time.. OrgName:DoD Network Information Center OrgID: DNIC Address:7990 Science Applications Ct Address:M/S CV 50 City: Vienna StateProv: VA PostalCode: 22183-7000 Country:US NetRange: 7.0.0.0 - 7.255.255.255 CIDR: 7.0.0.0/8 NetName:DISANET7 NetHandle: NET-7-0-0-0-1 Parent: NetType:Direct Allocation Comment:Defense Information Systems Agency Comment:DISA /D3 Comment:11440 Isaac Newton Square Comment:Reston, VA 22090-5087 US RegDate:1997-11-24 Updated:1998-09-26 TechHandle: MIL-HSTMST-ARIN TechName: Network DoD, Network TechPhone: +1-703-676-1051 TechEmail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] OrgTechHandle: MIL-HSTMST-ARIN OrgTechName: Network DoD, Network OrgTechPhone: +1-703-676-1051 OrgTechEmail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, John Palmer wrote: Speaking of that, has 7/8 been allocated? Doesn't show it on IANA's list but I saw several routes come in (7.1/16 comes to mind) a few days ago. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 12:36 Subject: 69/8 revisited I've setup a little web site with the results of my ping sweep to attempt to locate as many networks as possible with outdated bogon filters. http://69box.atlantic.net/ If you can't reach that, fix your network...or use the alternative non-69/8 hostname http://not69box.atlantic.net/ Number of IP's currently known to have 69/8 filter issues: 683 Number of /24 networks's currently known to have 69/8 filter issues: 511 Check out the site and see if you recognize any of the IPs. You can test/remove IPs if they've become reachable, or test/add IPs if they have 69/8 filter issues. -- Jon Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED]| I route System Administrator| therefore you are Atlantic Net| _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
Re: Allegiance telecom boston colo down?
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Dave Israel wrote: I do. But I won't discuss it in this forum. My best advice in general, is when you have a backbone problem with Allegiance, call the NOCC (866 696 2794, options 3,1,4). They've got the most data on that, and if you're a customer of Allegiance, they'll gladly share. And if you're not a customer...
Re: is this true or... ?
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:59:02 EST, Richard Irving said: Sean Donelan wrote: identical legislation being introduced in six different states? I suspect an outside influence was involved in drafting the proposed legislation. Now, -that's- using your noodle. With just a little investigative work, we should be able to find out which of the Righteous Vigilante Right was running around championing this concept Usually, you find someone who is a member of a politically active group, perhaps a church group, or lobbying group, who has a child, and walked in upon him/her opening up a pornographic spam Actually, it's the copyright people, it appears. http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/doc/2003/mpaa_27mar.pdf Follow the money. *SIGH* pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: is this true or... ?
On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 02:07:24PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:59:02 EST, Richard Irving said: Sean Donelan wrote: identical legislation being introduced in six different states? I suspect an outside influence was involved in drafting the proposed legislation. Now, -that's- using your noodle. With just a little investigative work, we should be able to find out which of the Righteous Vigilante Right was running around championing this concept Usually, you find someone who is a member of a politically active group, perhaps a church group, or lobbying group, who has a child, and walked in upon him/her opening up a pornographic spam Actually, it's the copyright people, it appears. http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/doc/2003/mpaa_27mar.pdf Follow the money. *SIGH* You mean Richard Irving was _wrong_ ??? Wow. -- Nathan Norman - Incanus Networking mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GUIs normally make it simple to accomplish simple actions and impossible to accomplish complex actions. -- Doug Gwyn pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: is this true or... ?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:59:02 EST, Richard Irving said: Sean Donelan wrote: identical legislation being introduced in six different states? I suspect an outside influence was involved in drafting the proposed legislation. Now, -that's- using your noodle. With just a little investigative work, we should be able to find out which of the Righteous Vigilante Right was running around championing this concept Usually, you find someone who is a member of a politically active group, perhaps a church group, or lobbying group, who has a child, and walked in upon him/her opening up a pornographic spam Actually, it's the copyright people, it appears. http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/doc/2003/mpaa_27mar.pdf Follow the money. *SIGH* Ah, yes. The -=one=- motive more powerful than even self preservation of the species... * Greed * Did you know that in Africa, there is a humane monkey trap that has been used for countless ages... Sun Flower seeds in an empty coconut shell, securely mounted. With a narrow opening in the top of the shell, the monkey reaches in, and grabs a handful of seeds.. But, with its hand -full- of seeds, it cannot withdraw it from the Narrow Opening in the top of the coconut You have to check these traps often, though... The Monkey will starve to death, rather than release the hand full of seeds. Did you know that man's genomes are roughly 98% Simian ? :D Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature
Re: Allegiance telecom boston colo down?
On 3/28/2003 at 14:02:36 -0500, Sean Donelan said: On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Dave Israel wrote: I do. But I won't discuss it in this forum. My best advice in general, is when you have a backbone problem with Allegiance, call the NOCC (866 696 2794, options 3,1,4). They've got the most data on that, and if you're a customer of Allegiance, they'll gladly share. And if you're not a customer... ...then if you have a good reason to ask, they'll help you, and if not, they won't. This should not surprise anybody; that's how NOCCs are.
Re: is this true or... ?
Nathan E Norman wrote: On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 02:07:24PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:59:02 EST, Richard Irving said: Sean Donelan wrote: identical legislation being introduced in six different states? I suspect an outside influence was involved in drafting the proposed legislation. Now, -that's- using your noodle. With just a little investigative work, we should be able to find out which of the Righteous Vigilante Right was running around championing this concept Usually, you find someone who is a member of a politically active group, perhaps a church group, or lobbying group, who has a child, and walked in upon him/her opening up a pornographic spam Actually, it's the copyright people, it appears. http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/doc/2003/mpaa_27mar.pdf Follow the money. *SIGH* You mean Richard Irving was _wrong_ ??? Wow. It would be a miracle, eh ? Agreed. But, Alas, you confuse a hypothesis, with a conclusion. Better luck next time. :P -- Nathan Norman - Incanus Networking mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GUIs normally make it simple to accomplish simple actions and impossible to accomplish complex actions. -- Doug Gwyn Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature
RE: [OT: FW: About your using mailer]
As I figured. Here was my official reply I sent to him: RFC-2822 is a Proposed Standard according to the Official Internet Protocol Standards. We are completely compliant with RFC822, which is the current standard for MAIL. If your software in unable to handle older standards, it is suggested that you upgrade. In regards to what mail platform we are using, we do run Microsoft Exchange 5.5. If you would like us to upgrade, I can forward you bank details so you can wire us $45,000 - the cost of switching to another product. Until then, please discontinue these unsolicited memos, for the public good. --- Michael Damm, MIS Department, Irwin Research Development V: 509.457.5080 x298 F: 509.577.0301 E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Joshua Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 10:01 AM To: Mike Damm; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [OT: FW: About your using mailer] i got one too - i was going to ask if anyone else minded that my mua was fully rfc 2822 compliant (before telling usa.net that they have to rewrite their webmail app)... i like how the examples cited are crap-html/mime oriented (msn, exchange, and aol?) Mike Damm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is anyone else getting this junk regarding the list? And can we put a stop to it? Granted in a perfect world everyone runs software throughout the entire enterprise that is on the bleeding edge of the latest proposed standards, but some of us only have so big of a budget. --- Michael Damm, MIS Department, Irwin Research Development V: 509.457.5080 x298 F: 509.577.0301 E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Miyoko Shioda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 9:30 AM To: Mike Damm Subject: Re: About your using mailer dear Mike Damm, Sorry, I am talking about NANOG mailing list. Please please change your MUA in mainling list... Regards, On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:28:17 -0800 Mike Damm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What mailing list are you talking about? --- Michael Damm, MIS Department, Irwin Research Development V: 509.457.5080 x298 F: 509.577.0301 E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Miyoko Shioda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 5:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: About your using mailer Hi, I read your messages in mailing list. Your using mailer(MUA) does not seems to support In-Reply-To nor References field. These field is defined in RFC-2822. If these field does not be outputted when you reply, tree construction will be break every time you post the messages to mailing list. It is inconvenient for the others. Please please change your mailer for the public good, at least when you post to mailing list. Today almost mailers support these field(at least In-Reply-To) except for the following mailers. MSN hotmail Exchange Server = 2000 (Exchange Server 2003 will support In-Reply-To.) Lotus Notes 6.0 MIME-Tools AOL mailer dtmail Novell GroupWise foxmail regards, -- Miyoko Shioda [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Miyoko Shioda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Walk with me through the Universe, And along the way see how all of us are Connected. Feast the eyes of your Soul, On the Love that abounds. In all places at once, seemingly endless, Like your own existence. - Stephen Hawking -
RE: is this true or... ?
Methinks what they are aiming for is trying to prevent spammers from hiding their origin using open relays/open proxies/stealthware. With the proper application of clue, maybe we'll have something to wield against the spammers. -Original Message- From: Tomas Daniska [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 8:09 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: is this true or... ? http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=8595 -- Tomas Daniska systems engineer Tronet Computer Networks Plynarenska 5, 829 75 Bratislava, Slovakia tel: +421 2 58224111, fax: +421 2 58224199 A transistor protected by a fast-acting fuse will protect the fuse by blowing first.
Re: Allegiance telecom boston colo down?
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Dave Israel wrote: On 3/28/2003 at 14:02:36 -0500, Sean Donelan said: On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Dave Israel wrote: I do. But I won't discuss it in this forum. My best advice in general, is when you have a backbone problem with Allegiance, call the NOCC (866 696 2794, options 3,1,4). They've got the most data on that, and if you're a customer of Allegiance, they'll gladly share. And if you're not a customer... ...then if you have a good reason to ask, they'll help you, and if not, they won't. This should not surprise anybody; that's how NOCCs are. I guess we'll have to wait for Allegiance customers leak the information. The leaks may not be as accurate as if the information came directly from Allegiance. Other providers such as ATT, Earthlink, MFN, RCN have a different philosophy about providing information concerning their network status. Not all NOC's are the same.
Re: is this true or... ?
: self preservation of the species... : : * Greed * : : Did you know that in Africa, there is a humane monkey trap : that has been used for countless ages... : : Sun Flower seeds in an empty coconut shell, securely mounted. : : With a narrow opening in the top of the shell, the monkey reaches in, : and grabs a handful of seeds.. : : But, with its hand -full- of seeds, it cannot withdraw it : from the Narrow Opening in the top of the coconut : : You have to check these traps often, though... : : The Monkey will starve to death, rather than release the : hand full of seeds. : : Did you know that man's genomes are roughly 98% Simian ? : : :D : : : : : : Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature :
Re: Allegiance telecom boston colo down?
...then if you have a good reason to ask, they'll help you, and if not, they won't. This should not surprise anybody; that's how NOCCs are. I guess we'll have to wait for Allegiance customers leak the information. The leaks may not be as accurate as if the information came directly from Allegiance. Other providers such as ATT, Earthlink, MFN, RCN have a different philosophy about providing information concerning their network status. Not all NOC's are the same. Yeah, and you'll have to wait for a while since our business unit - who is a customer and has called repeatedly both the NOC and their sales team - has received nothing beyond we don't know what's wrong. Eric :)
Re: Allegiance telecom boston colo down?
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Dave Israel wrote: ...then if you have a good reason to ask, they'll help you, and if not, they won't. This should not surprise anybody; that's how NOCCs are. good reason to ask varies wildly with different nocs. -Dan -- [-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]
Re: Allegiance telecom boston colo down?
At the risk of starting a debate that will go nowhere and annoy the readership... On 3/28/2003 at 14:44:00 -0500, Sean Donelan said: I guess we'll have to wait for Allegiance customers leak the information. The leaks may not be as accurate as if the information came directly from Allegiance. Other providers such as ATT, Earthlink, MFN, RCN have a different philosophy about providing information concerning their network status. Not all NOC's are the same. I seriously doubt that, if a 12-year-old from Nebraska called the NOC at ATT and asked for a list of all their network failures in the past two years, the NOC person would feel obliged to spend their time on it. Furthermore, if that NOC tech could be helping to fix the problem, and I were a customer, I'd be upset that he is wasting time chatting on the phone with a non-customer. NOCs have limited resources. More importantly, they often don't know what's wrong until after it was fixed, and sharing what may be a wrong assessment with people who have no vested interest in the problem is asking for a lot more trouble, especially since they probably will never know or care what the real solution was. -Dave
Re: is this true or... ?
I think this is bringing it back on topic, Ms. Harris Ejay Hire wrote: Methinks what they are aiming for is trying to prevent spammers from hiding their origin using open relays/open proxies/stealthware. Agreed, However: The Highway to Hell is paved with Good intentions. With the proper application of clue, maybe we'll have something to wield against the spammers. Like new base software from the IETF. * cough * Otherwise, we will -still- be missing the clue I don't question the intentions, I question the structural integrity of the composition of the pavement, and where the road is -=leading=-. (Back on topic, Ma'am ? ;) -Original Message- From: Tomas Daniska [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 8:09 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: is this true or... ? http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=8595 -- Tomas Daniska systems engineer Tronet Computer Networks Plynarenska 5, 829 75 Bratislava, Slovakia tel: +421 2 58224111, fax: +421 2 58224199 A transistor protected by a fast-acting fuse will protect the fuse by blowing first.
Re: Curing the BIND pain
Nathan J. Mehl wrote: In the immortal words of [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): I suggest that an appropriate technique would be for the BIND server to originate traffic on it's local subnet that would look suspicious and possibly trigger intrusion alarms. Good lord. I'm a little stuck for a proper analogy for this. A car that helpfully starts emitting noxious smoke to let you know that it's time for a tune-up? A car whose breaks start to squeal annoyingly telling you they're about to wear out? An answering machine that replaces the outgoing message with a stream of profanities to alert callers that the incoming message tape is full? Cash register tape that turns an ugly pink or green towards the end of the roll? Cell phones, pagers, and fifty zillion other electronic devices that beep or buzz endlessly when the battery starts to run low? Not that I agree that making BIND self-destruct or send off alarms is a particularly workable idea. Even if someone comes up with a beautiful system for this, it's probably all moot. How many vendors of binary distributions aren't just going to rip the code back out (BIND being freely modifiable open source)? Doing so reduces the number of confused and panicked calls from clients when BIND does whatever weird things it is programmed to, and also would reduce the pressure for instant patches whenever BIND self-destructs. What vendor in their right mind would leave it in? -- Crist J. Clark | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://people.freebsd.org/~cjc/| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Allegiance telecom boston colo down?
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Dave Israel wrote: I seriously doubt that, if a 12-year-old from Nebraska called the NOC at ATT and asked for a list of all their network failures in the past two years, the NOC person would feel obliged to spend their time on I try to point out when providers are doing a good job. ATT has set up their system so their NOC people don't have to get bogged down answering phones. ATT has a very nice news system where you can read about network issues. ATT's customer care people post regular updates about POP problems, circuits down, etc. I suppose if the 12-year old from Nebraska archived the news system for two years, he could read about all their network issues. Earthlink has http://support.earthlink.net/harvest_inc/SYSSTATUS/sysstatus_pop.html RCN has http://status.erols.com MFN has http://status.psinet.com etc, etc, etc While there is always room for improvement, and some providers have goofed up, there are providers who attempt to keep their network users (even if they aren't direct customers) informed.
RE: [OT: FW: About your using mailer]
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Mike Damm wrote: Here was my official reply I sent to him: [smarmy email elided] Thats the email you sent to Mr. Miyoko Shioda? You might want to get in touch with Mr. JC Dill then, and ask her which bothers her more- gender assumptions or MUA snobbery. Cheers, toots. (Mr.) Matt Ghali --- Michael Damm, MIS Department, Irwin Research Development V: 509.457.5080 x298 F: 509.577.0301 E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]darwin Flowers on the razor wire/I know you're here/We are few/And far between/I was thinking about her skin/Love is a many splintered thing/Don't be afraid now/Just walk on in. #include disclaim.h
Re: Allegiance telecom boston colo down?
On 3/28/2003 at 16:19:03 -0500, Sean Donelan said: On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Dave Israel wrote: I seriously doubt that, if a 12-year-old from Nebraska called the NOC at ATT and asked for a list of all their network failures in the past two years, the NOC person would feel obliged to spend their time on I try to point out when providers are doing a good job. ATT has set up their system so their NOC people don't have to get bogged down answering phones. ATT has a very nice news system where you can read about network issues. ATT's customer care people post regular updates about POP problems, circuits down, etc. I suppose if the 12-year old from Nebraska archived the news system for two years, he could read about all their network issues. That may be true. However, we weren't talking about network outage notifications in general, we were talking specifically about calling our NOCC to ask about an outage. No, it isn't apples to oranges, but it is Red Deliciouses to Granny Smiths. ;-) While there is always room for improvement, and some providers have goofed up, there are providers who attempt to keep their network users (even if they aren't direct customers) informed. And if you're a network operator who is flinging packets across our network and they aren't arriving, and you want to know why, that generally fits the descripton of good reason, in my book. I'll admit, it isn't perfect. As somebody else pointed out, good reason is not an easy metric; it depends on who you are, who you have reached, the nature of the outage, how busy the NOCC is, the phase of the moon, etc, etc. -Dave
Re: Using Policy Routing to stop DoS attacks
With Juniper gear there is no performance difference between what you propose and an ACL, both run at wire rate. So implementing CPU saving measures is pointless waste of time. Pete We could ask Cisco and Juniper to add a way of 'artificially' remove networks from the CEF table (with an ACL or so). That way, even with loose-RPF, the packet will be dropped based on source-address at the ingress without consuming CPU. Or maybe such a feature already exist André At 09:06 25.03.2003 -0500, Christian Liendo wrote: Looking for advice. I am sorry if this was discussed before, but I cannot seem to find this. I want to use source routing as a way to stop a DoS rather than use access-lists. In other words, lets say I know the source IP (range of IPs) of an attack and they do not change. If the destination stays the same I can easily null route the destination, but what if the destination constantly changes. So I have to work based on the source IP. Depending on the router and the code, if I implement an access-list then the CPU utilization shoots through the roof. What I would like to try and do is use source routing to route that traffic to null. I figured it would be easier on the router than an access-list. Has anyone else tried this successfully on ciscos and junipers? Is it easier on the CPU than access-lists? Is there a link I cannot find on cisco or google? Thanks Christian Liendo - Andre Chapuis IP+ Engineering Swisscom Ltd Genfergasse 14 3050 Bern +41 31 893 89 61 [EMAIL PROTECTED] CCIE #6023 --
OUTAGE: Known Iraq public Internet service
In the last few hours, all the public Internet hosts I knew were physically in Iraq (i.e. connected through the Iraqi state provider), have stopped responding. I don't know the cause (power failure, telecom failure, physical damage, shutdown by administrator, etc). Of course, this does not mean there are no IP-enabled devices operating within Iraq's physical borders. The Iraq government and military may have private IP networks, not connected to the Internet or connected in ways I don't know about. Likewise the US military and various news media are carrying IP enabled devices in southern Iraq, but I don't know their IP addresses. I also believe in Kurdish controlled areas have seperate Internet connections.
Re: is this true or... ?
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:06:56 -0500, blitz wrote: If it is, it reveals how utterly clueless our legislators really are The text I saw talks about a device's primary purpose. The primary purpose of NAT is not to hide anything, it's to allow multiple connections to share a scarce resource. If you download your email over an encrypted link, your primary purpose is to conceal the *content* of communications, not their source or destination. Similarly, the primary purpose of a firewall is to enforce policies about security, not to hide the origin of a communication. So the issue is really more narrow. The issue is whether it's ever legitimate to do something primarily for the purpose of hiding the origin or destination of a communication from an ISP. I would argue that most people don't care if their ISPs know where there communications originate or terminate; however, the law is bad because there certainly are legitimate cases where my ISP has no business knowing who is talking to me or who I'm talking to. However, Felten's claim that anything that concealed the origin would be illegal is FUD. In fact, his spin no it is pure FUD, IMO. That said, if it takes a bit of FUD to get attention to a bad law, that's maybe not such a terribly bad thing. The risk is that lawmakers will refute the FUD and then feel comfortable going ahead with a bad law. -- David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: is this true or... ?
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]@whenever, David Schwar tz writes: On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:06:56 -0500, blitz wrote: If it is, it reveals how utterly clueless our legislators really are The text I saw talks about a device's primary purpose. I'm not sure what text you saw. The Texas bill (I posted the URL earlier today) does not speak of primary purpose. The section Felten warned about (Section 6) criminalizes the following things: manufacture, sale, etc., of a communications device with an intent to *either* defraud, *or* conceal origin, destination, etc.; manufacture, sale, etc., of an unauthorized access divce; or manufacture, sale, etc., of plans or instructions for such devices with the knowledge that the intent of the end user is illegal. The word primary does not occur in the text of the bill, according to both my reading and Acrobat's find fucntion. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me) http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of Firewalls book)
Re: is this true or... ?
Steven M. Bellovin wrote: but there may be session state -- it's bill HB 2121) only criminalizes the conduct if it's done with intent to harm or defraud a communications service provider. Now, given the anti-NAT and anti-VPN tendencies of some broadband ISPs, I'm not necessarily thrilled, but it's not quite the same as was originally suggested. Without looking it up (a little busy), there should be a Definitions section defining communications service provider. Is the bill aimed at ISP's or is it aimed at the actual Telco? -Jack *probably just creating noise*
Re: is this true or... ?
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jack Bates writes: Steven M. Bellovin wrote: but there may be session state -- it's bill HB 2121) only criminalizes the conduct if it's done with intent to harm or defraud a communications service provider. Now, given the anti-NAT and anti-VPN tendencies of some broadband ISPs, I'm not necessarily thrilled, but it's not quite the same as was originally suggested. Without looking it up (a little busy), there should be a Definitions section defining communications service provider. Is the bill aimed at ISP's or is it aimed at the actual Telco? -Jack *probably just creating noise* I'm busy, too, and probably shouldn't bother, but see http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/data/docmodel/78r/billtext/pdf/HB02121I.PDF -- and yes, it specifically speaks of an Internet-based distribution system, network, or facility. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me) http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of Firewalls book)
Re: is this true or... ?
On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 09:35:09AM -0600, Jack Bates allegedly wrote: Without looking it up (a little busy), there should be a Definitions section defining communications service provider. Is the bill aimed at ISP's or is it aimed at the actual Telco? Also a communication.
