On Sat, 3 Sep 2005, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
>
>
>
> > Nice try, but the location that I was trying from did not use
> > "alternative root servers".
> >
> > FYI: They are "Inclusive Namespace Servers".
>
> United.COM works from everywhere I try it. MCI, AT&T, Internap,
> and Sprint. I can run tic
At 7:05 AM -0400 9/3/05, Jerry Dixon wrote:
I don't know how many of you have a Ham license but see
below:
In talking with communication providers in the region they
just now got satellite phones and in process of assessing
and repairing communication lines for New Orleans. They're
still somew
> > > this is NOT a good solution, since a successful phish attack
> > > in this case
> > > would look exactly like the official red cross web site.
> >
> > How's that one work?
>
> One form of DirectNIC's redirection, which the phisher was
> supposedly using
> (I didn't check myself), uses a
> Nice try, but the location that I was trying from did not use
> "alternative root servers".
>
> FYI: They are "Inclusive Namespace Servers".
United.COM works from everywhere I try it. MCI, AT&T, Internap,
and Sprint. I can run tickets, check miles, and check my dining
points.
Currently li
On Sat, 3 Sep 2005, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
> > this is NOT a good solution, since a successful phish attack
> > in this case
> > would look exactly like the official red cross web site.
>
> How's that one work?
One form of DirectNIC's redirection, which the phisher was supposedly using
(I didn'
Nice try, but the location that I was trying from did not use "alternative root
servers".
FYI: They are "Inclusive Namespace Servers".
- Original Message -
From: "John Levine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 1:49 PM
Subject: Re: UNITED.CO
> this is NOT a good solution, since a successful phish attack
> in this case
> would look exactly like the official red cross web site.
How's that one work?
-M<
On 03 Sep 2005 23:28:55 +
Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> this is NOT a good solution, since a successful phish attack in this
> case would look exactly like the official red cross web site. plz put
> up an informative 404 page and no pointers to any phish-worthy sites.
Earlier,
some of the reasons a lot of us pay so little attention to most alternative
root nameserver systems are: they often don't do their homework, and they
often don't pay attention to the details.
diffing text files as a way to check for zone changes would be one way to
commit both errors at the same
this is NOT a good solution, since a successful phish attack in this case
would look exactly like the official red cross web site. plz put up an
informative 404 page and no pointers to any phish-worthy sites.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Marcus H. Sachs") writes:
> Thanks very much Reed!!! Great soluti
Thanks very much Reed!!! Great solution by the way.
Marc
SANS ISC
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Reed Loden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 3:05 PM
To: Marcus H. Sachs
Cc: nanog@merit.edu; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: FW: Need some help: IDEA
Todd Vierling wrote:
On Sat, 3 Sep 2005, Peter Dambier wrote:
And I am glad they are updating again,
The root zone (.) changes infrequently enough that a delay of 24h or less
should not matter at all. It's not like the zone is, for instance, COM. or
CO.UK.
although
2005-09-03 (246) 09
On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 11:00:03 -0400
"Marcus H. Sachs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The IDEAS, Inc. scum MUST die, but I'm all out of ideas at this point...
> the only other possibility that I can think of it to take them out at
> the DNS level. All of the "slave" sites at 206.251.184.10 use Direct
>The United Airlines website appears to be down and has been down for =
>days.
>
>Is this a network issue or are they out of business??
Darn those pesky alternate root servers.
R's,
John
mtr shows the packet loss in the last hop for me:
14. sjck-dmzbb-gw1.cisco.com 0.0%
62 66.6 75.4 64.5 293.7 37.1
15. sjck-dmzdc-gw2.cisco.com 0.0%
62 62.5 65.4 59.2 155.4 13.1
16. www.cisco.c
Last night I had a maintenance so I use www.cisco.com for testing the
network connectivity.
But it seems that I'm seeing about 20% packet loss from www.cisco.com.
I did same test from various points including my home cable modem
connection, which is not my company's network,
but I'm getting same
On Sat, 3 Sep 2005, Marcus H. Sachs wrote:
> Right now, there are two weak points to this particular house of cards.
>
> 1) The first site listed, "http://www.hurricanekatrinarelief.com"; is what
> drives all of the others. Each of the other sites, loads the first one in
> an IFRAME. That makes
Just an FYI, FBI and Secret Service are actively working these
as they are identified.
We definitely don't need more victims. If you don't feel
you're getting the response needed contact US CERT:
https://forms.us-cert.gov/report/ or
http://www.us-cert.gov/contact.html
We'll make sure the
One of our incident handlers at the SANS Internet Storm Center has been
trying to chase down the bogus Katrina assistance web sites. Below is a
note of frustration he sent internally to us this morning. I asked if I
could cross-post over to NANOG to see if any of you could assist.
Thanks in adv
On Sat, 3 Sep 2005, Peter Dambier wrote:
> And I am glad they are updating again,
The root zone (.) changes infrequently enough that a delay of 24h or less
should not matter at all. It's not like the zone is, for instance, COM. or
CO.UK.
> although
> 2005-09-03 (246) 09:37:36 Paris
> 2005-
The important thing is to let those guys play with their toys as long as there
is no emergency and as long as no one believes there will ever be one.
Given an emergency, those guys turn into proffessionals immediately and their
toys become valuable tools.
The same tools in the hand of inexperie
I don't know how many of you have a Ham license but see
below:
In talking with communication providers in the region they
just now got satellite phones and in process of assessing
and repairing communication lines for New Orleans. They're
still somewhat challenged with comms including at she
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A similar problem would be created if a web server relied
on DNS that was only hosted on servers in New Orleans.
Do you (or somebody) know of recent numbers of what percentage of
domains have all their DNS servers in;
a) same subnet
b) same AS
c) same geographic
Roy Badami wrote:
"David" == David Ulevitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
David> Nope. Not defunct.
David> Apples: http://www.internic.net/zones/named.root and
David> Oranges: http://www.internic.net/zones/root.zone
Yeah, sorry, I'm being dumb. I'll go back to lurking now...
24 matches
Mail list logo
