RE: Cisco 2611XM as cheap border router
Foundry routes fall into your 2 argument :) -- Majid -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Daniel Golding Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 12:52 PM To: Rodney Dunn; Mark Bojara Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Cisco 2611XM as cheap border router It would be fairly useful if Cisco had a published document that detailed the minimum configuration for each major router line to support BGP with 1 to 4 full views. Of course, this would have to be periodically updated. By this, I mean a separate overlay document for their entire router product line. This would be very helpful to operators and integrators who get asked about minimum configurations fairly frequently... (I'm only picking on Cisco because they are 1) big and 2) have routers that support BGP but don't have enough memory for full tables) - Dan On 1/11/05 12:21 PM, Rodney Dunn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This will not work for full routes. The memory upgrade is utilized for larger IOS images with new features. An update to the product bulletin is in the works to clarify it. Further specific questions in regards to the memory can be moved over to the cisco-nsp alias. Rodney On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 07:39:49AM +0200, Mark Bojara wrote: Hello people of nanog :) Ive been doing some reading up and I see that that 2600 series is now supporting 256MB of memory. Do you guys think this router could handle 3/4 peers a QoS setup (RSVP or something)? http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/routers/ps259/products_qanda_item 0900a ecd800f71dd.shtml Regards Mark
RE: $50,000 reward for Verizon cable cutter
Maybe a current Verizon employee looking for extra OT... Chuck Church Lead Design Engineer CCIE #8776, MCNE, MCSE Netco Government Services - Design Implementation Team 1210 N. Parker Rd. Greenville, SC 29609 Home office: 864-335-9473 Cell: 703-819-3495 [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0x4371A48D -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joshua Brady Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 10:32 PM To: Hannigan, Martin Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: $50,000 reward for Verizon cable cutter Your not giving customers enough credit, your a customer yourself arn't you? Do you know how to cut those cables? Would anyone else on the list who isn't a disgruntled verizon employee? On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:26:04 -0500, Hannigan, Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Disgruntled customers don't know how to cut X hundred pair cables. --- Martin Hannigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Verisign, Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: nanog@merit.edu nanog@merit.edu Sent: Fri Jan 14 19:10:35 2005 Subject: Re: $50,000 reward for Verizon cable cutter Sean Donelan wrote: Verizon is offering a $50,000 reward for information about several acts of cut cables in the last couple of months. At least three lines were cut in the last week. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/01/13/veri zon_ seeking_information_about_cable_cutter/ With a power saw? Goodness, that sounds noisy in the middle of the night. I'd have thought a low tech ax would do the job. :-) Probably a disgruntled customer, with cable bundles that repair says were supposed to be replaced 12 years ago, but engineering says isn't in the budget (like my SBC/Ameritech neighborhood in Ann Arbor). Sigh, not enough criminal instinct here. -- William Allen Simpson Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32 -- Joshua Brady
Man accused of 'zombie' web blitz
Given the amount of discussion on botnets and zombies, I thought this article was rather interesting: A man has been arrested on suspicion of launching attacks over the internet after an operation between Scottish police and the US Secret Service. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4175801.stm - ferg -- Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
panix.com hijacked
panix.com has apparently been hijacked. It's now associated with a different registrar -- melbourneit instead of dotster -- and a different owner. Can anyone suggest appropriate people to contact to try to get this straightened out? --Prof. Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
Re: panix.com hijacked
Once upon a time, Steven M. Bellovin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: panix.com has apparently been hijacked. It's now associated with a different registrar -- melbourneit instead of dotster -- and a different owner. Can anyone suggest appropriate people to contact to try to get this straightened out? Good luck dealing with melbourneit.com; that's the place where domains go to die. -- Chris Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
Re: panix.com hijacked
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005, Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Steven M. Bellovin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: panix.com has apparently been hijacked. It's now associated with a different registrar -- melbourneit instead of dotster -- and a different owner. Can anyone suggest appropriate people to contact to try to get this straightened out? Good luck dealing with melbourneit.com; that's the place where domains go to die. I originally replied offlist, but... Under the new ICANN transfer policy, this will most likely be reversed if its shown to be an improper transfer. You need to bring Dotster into this and they need to invoke a transfer dispute under the new policy. MelbourneIT needs to demonstrate a proper FOA (Form of Authorization) to have initiated the transfer and if its found to be invalid the domain will be re-instated and Melbourne-IT fined. -mark -- Mark Jeftovic [EMAIL PROTECTED] Co-founder, easyDNS Technologies Inc. ph. +1-(416)-535-8672 ext 225 fx. +1-(416)-535-0237
Re: panix.com hijacked
Mark Jeftovic [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Once upon a time, Steven M. Bellovin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: panix.com has apparently been hijacked. It's now associated with a different registrar -- melbourneit instead of dotster -- and a different owner. Can anyone suggest appropriate people to contact to try to get this straightened out? Good luck dealing with melbourneit.com; that's the place where domains go to die. I originally replied offlist, but... Under the new ICANN transfer policy, this will most likely be reversed if its shown to be an improper transfer. You need to bring Dotster into this and they need to invoke a transfer dispute under the new policy. Dotster isn't in a position to do anything. They don't show the domain as being transfered. Someone managed to hack the system. They're pretty upset by the situation, too. The membourneit.com folks conveniently refuse to do anything over the weekend. The bad guys struck around midnight Saturday, Australian time, so as to make the damage as bad as possible. Panix is highly screwed by this -- their users are all off the air, and they can't really wait for an appeals process to complete in order to get everything back together again. Perry
Re: panix.com hijacked
On Sat, Jan 15, 2005 at 10:27:31PM -0500, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: panix.com has apparently been hijacked. It's now associated with a different registrar -- melbourneit instead of dotster -- and a different owner. Can anyone suggest appropriate people to contact to try to get this straightened out? --Prof. Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb calls have been initiated. --bill
Re: panix.com hijacked
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005, Mark Jeftovic wrote: Once upon a time, Steven M. Bellovin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: panix.com has apparently been hijacked. It's now associated with a different registrar -- melbourneit instead of dotster -- and a different owner. Can anyone suggest appropriate people to contact to try to get this straightened out? Good luck dealing with melbourneit.com; that's the place where domains go to die. I originally replied offlist, but... Under the new ICANN transfer policy, this will most likely be reversed if its shown to be an improper transfer. You need to bring Dotster into this and they need to invoke a transfer dispute under the new policy. The problem is that during that time panix and its users have suffered serious losses. They should never have allowed the transfer in the first place without authorization, so new ICANN policy is a problem, not a solution. MelbourneIT needs to demonstrate a proper FOA (Form of Authorization) to have initiated the transfer and if its found to be invalid the domain will be re-instated and Melbourne-IT fined. That means at least 24 hours for initial investigation and it likely will not happen until Monday (bad guys do these sort of things on weekends for a reason ...) and they probably will not act until Monday evening or longer (and that is at the same time when Verisign now allows rapid updates to zone file and could fix it very quickly). If I were Panix, I would get lawyers to draft and fax a nastygram letter to MelburneIT and somewhat similar letter to Verisign warning them of the liabilities involved in being accomplices to such a such a fraudulent and illegal actions and saying that every hour the situation is not fixed Panix losses continue to increase and somebody would have to pay, etc... But more important would be to actually call Verisign (their NOC) and complain loud and clear - if I remember when something like this happened about 2-3 years ago to another bix company they fixed it in 12 hours. -- William Leibzon Elan Networks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: panix.com hijacked
I've forwared to Bruce Tonkin, who I know personally, at MIT, and Cliff Page, who I don't know as well, at Dotster, Steve's note. These are the RC reps for each registrar.
Re: panix.com hijacked
Once upon a time, Robert Kryger [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Sat, 15 Jan 2005, Chris Adams wrote: Good luck dealing with melbourneit.com; that's the place where domains go to die. Can you be a little more specific? You imply that you have experience or anecdotes about this outfit and this sort of situation. Not exactly this sort of situation, no. I do know that we've had hosting customers that have had domains with melbourneit.com as the registrar that they were unable to ever transfer to another registrar (despite emails, faxes, and phone calls; IIRC one customer tried for most of a year to transfer a domain to another registrar or at least get the nameservers changed without success). -- Chris Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
Re: panix.com hijacked
If I were Panix ... Free advice. Bruce, Cliff and Chuck are people. Yes, even Chuck is a people. You want prompt service, you ask nice and you ask the right people and you don't assume there are facts not in evidence, like errors or malfeasence, when you could be solving the problem, before the facts could be in evidence. My phone isn't going to ring, so I'm going to bed. Eric registrar_hat=off/
Re: panix.com hijacked
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine writes: If I were Panix ... Free advice. Bruce, Cliff and Chuck are people. Yes, even Chuck is a people. You want prompt service, you ask nice and you ask the right people and you don't assume there are facts not in evidence, like errors or malfeasence, when you could be solving the problem, before the facts could be in evidence. Agreed. At the moment, we don't know all the details of what happened; what's important is for Panix to get back on the air. We can sort out the blame later, when we have all the facts. --Prof. Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
Re: panix.com hijacked
Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If I were Panix ... Free advice. Bruce, Cliff and Chuck are people. Yes, even Chuck is a people. You want prompt service, you ask nice and you ask the right people and you don't assume there are facts not in evidence, like errors or malfeasence, when you could be solving the problem, before the facts could be in evidence. Alexis Rosen of Panix was on the phone earlier today with the company attorney for melbourneit -- reputedly he was informed that even if the police called, they would not do anything about the problem until Monday their time. Alexis is a bit on the upset side, naturally -- his company is in serious trouble because of very obvious fraud, and waiting a few days isn't really something he can afford to do. (If you look at the whois records now in place for panix.com they're pretty clearly the result of fraudulent activity. There is a pretty clear attempt there to maximally obscure who has stolen the domain name -- this is clearly not an innocent mistake.) Perry
Re: panix.com hijacked
Howdy Perry, Alexis Rosen of Panix was on the phone earlier today with the company attorney for melbourneit -- reputedly he was informed that even if the police called, they would not do anything about the problem until Monday their time. (a) I don't know MIT's attorney, and (b) I wouldn't ever call him or her when I could reach someone I know, and (c) what would you expect an attorney to say? Alexis is a bit on the upset side, naturally -- his company is in serious trouble because of very obvious fraud, and waiting a few days isn't really something he can afford to do. (If you look at the whois records now in place for panix.com they're pretty clearly the result of fraudulent activity. There is a pretty clear attempt there to maximally obscure who has stolen the domain name -- this is clearly not an innocent mistake.) Yeah, but, home truths. There are registrars who will get out of bed at night for a customer, and registrars who could give a shit if hell froze. Just like ISPs and LEOs, neh? Picking a registrar with a market share in the top 10 means that you get 1/share's worth of attention, which means 1/1488700 of Dotster's attention (using 1/15 daily market share graph). Now, was that at the NetSol $35/yr price point for customer care, or the GoDaddy $6.95/yr price point for customer care. I suppose everyone thinks that it (for some value of it) can't happen to them, and that if it does, a wicked small amount of money will still do more than the oil that lights the lamps at Hanukkah, because bad acts are rare and all the dimes pile up into a shared fate insurance fund. Well, now I'm really going to bed. Eric
Re: panix.com hijacked
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: MelbourneIT needs to demonstrate a proper FOA (Form of Authorization) to have initiated the transfer and if its found to be invalid the domain will be re-instated and Melbourne-IT fined. Thanks. I'm told that dotster says they have no record of anything resembling this request Anyone happen to know if panix.com had their registrar-lock set when this happened? -mark -- Mark Jeftovic [EMAIL PROTECTED] Co-founder, easyDNS Technologies Inc. ph. +1-(416)-535-8672 ext 225 fx. +1-(416)-535-0237
Re: panix.com hijacked
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 22:05:47 -0600 Chris Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do know that we've had hosting customers that have had domains with melbourneit.com as the registrar that they were unable to ever transfer to another registrar (despite emails, faxes, and phone calls; IIRC one customer tried for most of a year to transfer a domain to another registrar or at least get the nameservers changed without success). We have had a comparable experience and now, on checking the DNS for the hijacked panix domain, I see name-servers similar to those I noted on that previous occasion. Known under various names that infer a UK connection, (such as Fibranet Services Ltd/freeparking.co.uk) but in fact seem to be Activebytes Software of 2530 Channin Drive Wilmington Delaware, with servers routed via Koallo Inc in Canada! So far as we were able to determine, there was no actual UK presence. ns1.ukdnsservers.co.uk has address 142.46.200.67 ns2.ukdnsservers.co.uk has address 207.61.90.196 ns3.ukdnsservers.co.uk has address 142.46.200.68 ns4.ukdnsservers.co.uk has address 207.61.90.197 MelbourneIT appear to have a U.S. Office near San Francisco: 2200 Powell Street, Sixth Floor, Suite 690, Emeryville CA 94608 which would be slightly more accessible for service of writs, etc ... -- Richard Cox
Re: panix.com hijacked
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 01:32:46 EST, Henry Yen said: from panix shell hosts motd: . panix.net usable as panix.com (marcotte) Sat Jan 15 10:44:57 2005 So let's see.. the users will see this when they log into shell.panix.net (since shell.panix.com is borked).. Somehow, that doesn't seem to help much.. Not that there's any *better* solution, other than changing the top level of the phone tree to say: Hi, we're out with baseball bats looking for the guys who broke panix.com. In the meantime, you can use 'panix.net' as a temporary solution. If you've tried this already and it still doesn't work, or if you have some *other* issue, please press '9' now... (Been there, done that - we had a major mail hub outage a while ago, and tried to get the word out by sending everybody a voice mail message, which our phone system vendor *said* should work. We resisted the temptation to send everybody e-mail saying the voice mail system was down... ;) pgp01bffJAmeS.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: panix.com hijacked (VeriSign refuses to help)
Alexis Rosen tried to send this to NANOG earlier this evening but it looks like it never made it. Apologies if it's a duplicate; we're both reduced to reading the list via the web interface since the legitimate addresses for panix.com have now timed out of most folks' nameservers and been replaced with the hijacker's records. Note that we contacted VeriSign both directly and through intermediaries well known to their ops staff, in both cases explaining that we suspect a security compromise (technical or human) of the registration systems either at MelbourneIT or at VeriSign itself (we have reasons to suspect this that I won't go into here right now). We noted that after calling every publically available number for MelbourneIT and leaving polite messages, the only response we received was a rather rude brush-off from MelbourneIT's corporate counsel, who was evidently directed to call us by their CEO. We are also told that law enforcement separately contacted VeriSign on our behalf, to no avail. Below please find VeriSign's response to our plea for help. We're rather at a loss as to what to do now; MelbourneIT clearly are beyond reach, VeriSign won't help, and Dotster just claim they still own the domain and that as far as they can tell nothing's wrong. Panix may not survive this if the formal complaint and appeal procedure are the only way forward. Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 00:21:33 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], NOC Supervisor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FW: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Brief summary of panix.com hijacking incident] (KMM2294267V49480L0KM) From: VeriSign Customer Service [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailer: KANA Response 7.0.1.127 Dear Alexis, Thank you for contacting VeriSign Customer Service. Unfortunately there is little that VeriSign, Inc. can do to rectify this situation. If necessary, Dotster (or Melbourne) is more than welcome to contact us to obtain the specific details as to when the notices were sent and other historical information about the transfer itself. Dotster can file a Request for Enforcement if Melbourne IT contends that the request was legitimate and we will review the dispute and respond accordingly. Dotster can also contact Melbourne directly and if they come to an agreement that the transfer was fraudulent they can file a Request for Reinstatement and the domain would be reinstated to its original Registrar. Dotster could submit a normal transfer request to Melbourne IT for the domain name and hope that Melbourne IT agrees to transfer the name back to them outside of a dispute having been filed. In order to expedite processing the transfer or submitting a Request for Reinstatement however Dotster will need to contact Melbourne IT directly. If Dotster is unable to get in touch with anyone at Melbourne IT we can assist them directly if necessary. Best Regards, Melissa Blythe Customer Service VeriSign, Inc. www.verisign.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: panix.com hijacked
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 01:32:46 EST, Henry Yen said: from panix shell hosts motd: . panix.net usable as panix.com (marcotte) Sat Jan 15 10:44:57 2005 So let's see.. the users will see this when they log into shell.panix.net (since shell.panix.com is borked).. Somehow, that doesn't seem to help much.. and the hijackers could be, potentially, running a box pretending to be shell.panix.com, gathering userids and passwds :(
Re: panix.com hijacked
Apologies for what may be another duplicate message, probably with broken threading. This is Alexis Rosen's original posting to this thread; we think the mail chaos caused by the hijacking of panix.com kept it from ever reaching the list (but, flying mostly-blind, we aren't sure). On Sat, Jan 15, 2005 at 10:27:31PM -0500, Steven M. Bellovin said: panix.com has apparently been hijacked. It's now associated with a different registrar -- melbourneit instead of dotster -- and a different owner. Can anyone suggest appropriate people to contact to try to get this straightened out? Hi, all. I hate to pop my head up after years of lurking, only when things are going bad, but probably better that than remaining silent. First of all, I'm going to be bounced from this list once its cache of my DNS times out, which will probably be in about 2-3 hours, so if you have anything to say that you'd like me to see, please copy me. We're temporarily accepting mail at panix.net in addition to panix.com, so use alexis (at) panix.net. A few points to respond to: First, Eric, thanks for contacting Bruce and Eric on my behalf. While nothing has happened so far, I hope that it will soon, and in any case I appreciate your efforts to help a total stranger. Someone asked if we had registrar-lock set. It's not clear to me what happened. Our understanding is that we had locks on all of our domains. However, when we looked, locks were off on panix.net and panix.org, which we own but don't normally use. It's not clear how that happened; dotster has yet to contact us with any information about, well, anything at all. They did answer a call this morning; they're apprently in the middle of an ice storm. All I was able to larn from them is that according to the person I talked to, they had no records of any transfer requests on our domain from today back through last October. Someone suggested invoking a dispute procedure. We'll do that, as soon as we can get someone to actually accept the dispute, but if it goes through that process to completion, many people will suffer, and Panix itself will be tremendously damaged. How long do you think even our customers will stay loyal? (Forever, for many of them, but that doesn't mean the won't be forced to start using a different service.) While it's true that MelbourneIT won't do anything before (their) Monday morning, I don't want to paint them as bad guys in this drama. I don't know how they're organized and I don't know how difficult it is for them logistically. Of course I want them to move faster. Much faster. But I'll take what I can get. And speaking of MIT, I don't intend to send them nastygrams - nor NSI either. Neither of them owes me anything (at least directly) and being heavyhanded would not be a good way to get what I want (restoral of the panix.com domain to dotster) even if I thought they deserved it. I expect that there will be criminal prosecutions arising out of this, but the time for that sort of thing is later, when things are back to normal, and we've fixed any systemic vulnerabilities that can be fixed before they're used to wreak mass havoc. And it's anyone's guess who the target of those prosecutions will be, but I doubt MIT or NSI will be among them. Lastly, someone expressed surprise that I'd call MIT's lawyer directly. I didn't. I spent *hours* trying to find working contact info for MIT and Dotster. I didn't find useful 24-hour NOC-type info anywhere. (Someone obviously has this info; I expect it's restricted to a list of registrars.) I reached Dotster's customer support when they opened for business Saturday morning; the guy was polite, and did what he could, but I saw no evidence whatsoever of the promised attempt to assist me after he got off the phone. MIT apparently has no weekend support at all; I finally located their CEO's cellphone in an investor-relations web page. I caled him, and he had his lawyer call me back. That was his choice. FWIW, she's not just a lawyer; she's apparently the person who has to make decisions about reverting control of the domain. So she at least needs to be aware of our position. My impression is that she didn't fully grasp the gravity of the situation, and so treated us like she'd treat any other annoying customer who managed to track her down on her day off. This is somewhat understandable (though infuriating) which is why I'd hoped to talk to someone on their tech side first. No luck there, but if any of this reaches them, maybe that will start things going. Thanks again to everyone who has tried to help us today. /a
Re: panix.com hijacked (VeriSign refuses to help)
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 02:22:59AM -0500, Paul G wrote: - Original Message - From: Thor Lancelot Simon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: nanog@merit.edu Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 2:04 AM Subject: Re: panix.com hijacked (VeriSign refuses to help) Alexis Rosen tried to send this to NANOG earlier this evening but it looks like it never made it. Apologies if it's a duplicate; we're --- snip --- how about trying to get in touch with the folks hosting the dns (on the off chance that they are honest and willing to help) and asking them to put up the correct panix.com zone? The purported current admin contact appears to be a couple in Las Vegas who are probably the victims of a joe job. A little searching will reveal that people by that name really *do* live at the address given, and that one of the phone numbers given is a slightly obfuscated form of a Las Vegas number that either now or in the recent past belonged to one of them. Suffice to say it doesn't seem to be possible to get them to change the DNS. Chasing down the records for the tech contact, and the allocated party for the IP addresses now returned for various panix.com hosts (e.g. 142.46.200.72 for panix.com itself), and doing a little gumshoe work, seems to show that they're all in some way associated with a UK holding company that, when contacted by phone, claims no knowledge of today's mishap involving Panix.com. It's possible that this set of entities was chosen specifically *because* its convoluted ownership structure would make getting it to let go of a domain it may or may not know it now is the tech contact for as difficult as possible. Beyond the above, it's basically a matter for law enforcement. Who is really behind the malfeasance here is not clear, but what is clear enough to me at this point is that there is, in fact, some deliberate wrongdoing going on. Whether the point is just to harm Panix or to actually somehow profit by it I don't know, but I do note that an earlier message in this thread pointed out a very similar earlier incident involving MelbourneIT as the registrar, the same bogus new domain contacts, and another hapless U.S. corporate victim. I don't know if these are merely isolated attempts at harassment and mischief or the precursors to a more widespread attack. What I do know is that I'm very concerned, Panix is quite literally fighting for its life, everyone we've shown details of the problem to is concerned -- including CERT, AUSCERT, and knowledgeable law enforcement personnel -- with the notable exception of MelbourneIT, whose sole corporate response has been one of decided unconcern, and VeriSign, who seem entirely determined to pass the buck instead of investigating, fixing, or helping. And so it goes. Thor
Re: panix.com hijacked (VeriSign refuses to help)
- Original Message - From: Thor Lancelot Simon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Paul G [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: nanog@merit.edu Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 2:40 AM Subject: Re: panix.com hijacked (VeriSign refuses to help) --- snip --- I don't know if these are merely isolated attempts at harassment and mischief or the precursors to a more widespread attack. What I do know is that I'm very concerned, Panix is quite literally fighting for its life, everyone we've shown details of the problem to is concerned -- including CERT, AUSCERT, and knowledgeable law enforcement personnel -- with the notable exception of MelbourneIT, whose sole corporate response has been one of decided unconcern, and VeriSign, who seem entirely determined to pass the buck instead of investigating, fixing, or helping. And so it goes. i know people from verisign (used to?) read nanog-l. perhaps some sort of a deus ex machina intervention may be forthcoming? one can hope. -p --- paul galynin
