Re: GoDaddy.com shuts down entire data center?
I'm not sure how on-topic this is/was, but considering long thread and different opinions that were expressed before, I believe some here may want to have additional information I recently read: http://www.emailbattles.com/archive/battles/phish_aacgebeeje_hc/ The article author talked to both nectartech and godaddy and is also including copies of emails from nectartech side as to their conversations with godaddy. The last one (on how domain can be reactivated) you may find most interesting if you're not otherwise familiar with godaddy's policies: http://www.trimmail.com/news/archive/extra/godaddy_v_nectartech/14012006/ The customer service aspects of it are less impressive. I originally thought, based on information available at that time, that GoDaddy did a decent, or even a good job, at handling the call. Today, I think they did an OK job. Nothing exemplary, but definately not bad from an operations perspective. What is interesting is the concept of calling a rack, or a row, a datacenter. It's becoming more commonplace for terms to be exaggerated these days i.e. datacenter. Another interesting point is that GoDaddy charged a $199 reconnect fee. They punished the operator for the behavoir of their customers. -M
Re: Destructive computer viruses from history
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Gadi Evron wrote: Even so, 300,000 infected users worldwide is not a terribly large amount when compared to previous worms like Sober or Mydoom. However, with this worm it isn't the quantity of infected users, it is the destructive payload which is most concerning. Vmyths used to be a great source for debunking a lot of the virus hype. Everything old seems to be new again. In 1999, the Chernobyl virus was the end of the world. It erased disks and BIOS of computers. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/329688.stm Fast forward 2005. What is the proper response for a global impact of ~200K machines that may suffer data loss? I don't think that inter-continental mobilization is the answer. Wall Street may agree as well. AV and security companies gained nothing from this outbreak other than incurred operational expense - a data point to add to the is the customer paying their fair share argument. -M
Re: So -- what did happen to Panix?
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] .com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: certified validation of prefix ownership (and path, as has been pointed out) would be great. it's clearly a laudable goal and seemed like the right way to go. but right now, no one is doing it. the rfcs that's i've found have all expired. and the conversation about it has reached the point where people seem to have stopped even disagreeing about how to do it. in short, it's as dead as dns-sec. so what are we do do in the meantime? Perhaps people should stop trying to have these operational discussions in the IETF and take the discussions to NANOG where network operators gather. We have tried, of course; see, for example, NANOG 28 (Salt Lake City). There was no more consensus at NANOG than in the IETF... --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
Re: Destructive computer viruses from history
Sean Donelan wrote: On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Gadi Evron wrote: Even so, 300,000 infected users worldwide is not a terribly large amount when compared to previous worms like Sober or Mydoom. However, with this worm it isn't the quantity of infected users, it is the destructive payload which is most concerning. Vmyths used to be a great source for debunking a lot of the virus hype. Everything old seems to be new again. In 1999, the Chernobyl virus was the end of the world. It erased disks and BIOS of computers. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/329688.stm I would quote Dr. Alan Solomon here, but I have to ask for his permission. You have the right of it. Back then though, they had no way of knowing how many got infected, further -- this was down-played by AV vendors until they had no other choice, for it shows once again how the AV is not an all-powerful solution for everything anymore. Gadi.
Re: GoDaddy.com shuts down entire data center?
Martin Hannigan wrote: Another interesting point is that GoDaddy charged a $199 reconnect fee. They punished the operator for the behavoir of their customers. Which is, IMHO, *sometimes* appropriate and sometimes not. I hear that the victim of the disconnection actually was a bit of a spam spewer. If there have been repeated problems with him not dealing with abuse problems from his customers, disconnection is definitely justified. If this was the first or second incident, probably not. -- Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED Company website: http://JustThe.net/ Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/ E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307
