-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Cisco Security Advisory: Multiple Vulnerabilities Found by PROTOS IPSec Test
Suite
Advisory ID: 68158
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/707/cisco-sa-20051114-ipsec.shtml
Revision 1.0
For Public Release 2005 November 14 1100 GMT (UTC
"access the Internet", could it be more clear?
No, because there is no legal defintion of "the Internet."
While it is probably impossible to define a "full routing table" at
any particular point in time. It IS possible to evaluate/understand
whether someone is purposely, or accidenta
I believe that it is attributable to John Hart, Vitalink, late
1980's. If he didn't coin it, he sure quoted it a lot.
Radia would have said something more like "bridge within a campus and
route between them", I suspect.
On Nov 11, 2005, at 1:36 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
"bridge where
That is, except for getting general clue on what's going on -- and putting a
But, um, isn't that pretty important? Many of the NANOG talks are
specifically geared to let vendors know what operators need.
pinch of salt as the view one sees may not necessarily be representative.
How many
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd like to see some acknowledgement that there are legitimate uses
of number resources that don't include "the public Internet".
It's already there in RFC 2050:
Thanks for the reminder.
3 a) the organization has no intention of connecting to
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Blaine Christian wrote:
> We are talking about an infrastructure that does not lend itself very
> well to market forces. In many places FFTH and/or DSL from a single
> carrier are becoming the only options. I would not count a 500ms
> satellite hop as an option .
The cable
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Sean Donela
n writes:
>
>On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Blaine Christian wrote:
>> We are talking about an infrastructure that does not lend itself very
>> well to market forces. In many places FFTH and/or DSL from a single
>> carrier are becoming the only options. I would
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Sean Donela
> n writes:
> >
> >On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Blaine Christian wrote:
> >> We are talking about an infrastructure that does not lend itself very
> >> well to market forces. In many places FFTH and/or DSL fro
Googlebot keeps ignoring my robots.txt file, thereby hammering the server and
facilitating spam.
I think I found at least 2 bugs; see this thread in the robots.txt forum
thread:
http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum93/782.htm
I've used Google's direct contact form last Wednesday; still no ack
On Nov 14, 2005, at 11:31 AM, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Sean Donela
n writes:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Blaine Christian wrote:
We are talking about an infrastructure that does not lend itself
very
well to market forces
> I'd like to see some acknowledgement that there are legitimate uses of
> number resources that don't include "the public Internet".
It's already there in RFC 2050:
3 a) the organization has no intention of connecting to
the Internet-either now or in the future-but it still
requires a
>what is this "the" public routing table? where does one
>get it? in my 25 years of networking I have NEVER seen it.
>i am convinced that it is a fictional as the "public" Internet.
>or the "DFZ" ... they do not exist, except in the fevered
>imaginations of marketing droids.
On 11/14/05, Jeff Rosowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Requires you to register to read it. Sorry.
Register at http://www.webmasterworld.com/register.cgi
or
if you agree to terms located at http://www.webmasterworld.com/register.cgi
use mine (as sharing does not violate TOS):
username: bugmenom
On Nov 14, 2005, at 1:24 PM, Mark Owen wrote:
On 11/14/05, Jeff Rosowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Requires you to register to read it. Sorry.
Register at http://www.webmasterworld.com/register.cgi
or
if you agree to terms located at http://www.webmasterworld.com/
register.cgi
use mine (
On 11/14/05, Patrick W. Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Or just use bugmenot.com.
bugmenot's were all dead.
--
Mark Owen
>
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>
> > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Sean Donela n writes:
> > >
> > >On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Blaine Christian wrote:
> > >> We are talking about an infrastructure that does not lend itself
> > >> very well to market forces. In many places
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 05:53:04AM -0800, Fred Baker wrote:
> I believe that it is attributable to John Hart, Vitalink, late
> 1980's. If he didn't coin it, he sure quoted it a lot.
>
> Radia would have said something more like "bridge within a campus and
> route between them", I suspect.
>
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 11:36:00 +
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I'd like to see some acknowledgement that there are legitimate uses of
> > number resources that don't include "the public Internet".
>
RFC1627, "Network 10 Considered Harmful (Some Practices Shouldn't be
Codified)" and RFC3879,
> It's a two way street; vendors need to listen to the ops folks.
because they want to sell their equipment and software to the
operators?
> Ops folks need to participate in the IETF.
because they want to sell what? clue? seems unmarketable.
randy
Doh! I had no idea my thread would require login/be hidden from general
view! (A robots.txt info site had directed me there...) It seems I
fell for an SEO scam... how ironic. I guess that's why I haven't heard
from google...
Anyway, here's the page content (with some editing and paraphr
Sorry, I have been daydreaming :)
But waking up is a nightmare too: Getting rid of all those locally administered
addresses. Looks like it has taken me back to IPv4 for some time.
There should never have been rfc1918 in the first place nor NAT either.
Regards,
Peter
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
for one host, 185,932 ssh dictionary password attacks in one gmt day
(and, of course, password login is not enabled).
randy
On 11/12/05, Sean Donelan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Google is calling their offering "basic Internet access" and "premium
> service." Is "basic Internet access" different than "internet access?"
> Google doesn't really define what they mean by these terms.
The article in the Palo Alto Daily N
Randy Bush wrote:
> for one host, 185,932 ssh dictionary password attacks in one gmt day
> (and, of course, password login is not enabled).
Partial "solution": rate limit ports to max X (5) new connects per X (60
secs) time.
Et tada, almost not to be seen any more.
Misc Linux-based example:
http
Other solution: disable IPv4 SSH and enable the IPv6 one, no scanning on
that plane ;)
Yet.
--
My blog: http://blogs.securiteam.com/?author=6
"The third principle of sentient life is the capacity for self-sacrifice
--- the conscious ability to override evolution and self-preservation
for a
Randy Bush wrote:
for one host, 185,932 ssh dictionary password attacks in one gmt day
(and, of course, password login is not enabled).
randy
I guess it is.
Must be a high performing system :)
I have seen many attacks on DSL 1000 MBit and 2000 MBit hosts.
Attacks typically lasted 10 minute
Gadi Evron wrote:
>> Other solution: disable IPv4 SSH and enable the IPv6 one, no scanning on
>> that plane ;)
>
> Yet.
Enjoy scanning, even I and I guess the rest of this list will be long
time retired and sipping pina coladas and other good stuff (hot
chocolate milk with whipcream and baileys a
Jeroen Massar wrote:
Gadi Evron wrote:
Other solution: disable IPv4 SSH and enable the IPv6 one, no scanning on
that plane ;)
Yet.
Enjoy scanning, even I and I guess the rest of this list will be long
time retired and sipping pina coladas and other good stuff (hot
chocolate milk with whip
Jeroen Massar wrote:
Enjoy scanning, even I and I guess the rest of this list will be long
time retired and sipping pina coladas and other good stuff (hot
chocolate milk with whipcream and baileys anyone? :) in hawaii or some
other heavenly place the day that the hardware and pipes are available
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Peter Dambier wrote:
Moving sshd from port 22 to port 137, 138 or 139. Nasty eh?
Or run two daemons. One on port 22 does not allow ANY logins at all but
just tracks incoming connections and attempts (and possibly allows to
block-list them in real time - typically not wor
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Gadi Evron writes:
>
>You don't have to scan an entire /64 ( :) ).
>
>You can sniff network traffic and see what IP addresses you see, then
>scan only close ranges to those.
>You can create a DB or download one, with addresses of known used spaces.
>
>You can thro
Hi, NANOGers.
Efficient or not, we do see scanning activity on IPv6. We've seen
IPv6 botnets, compromised hosts on IPv6 used as IRC bounces, and
even one EU-based warez crew that enabled IPv6 tunnels on the
hosts they compromised. They used the IPv6 tunnels as their
management plane.
While IP
>> for one host, 185,932 ssh dictionary password attacks in one gmt day
>> (and, of course, password login is not enabled).
> Partial "solution":
it's not a problem, so needs no solution. it was just what i hoped
would be a very competitive entry into the "how many useless knocks
there have been
> Enjoy scanning, even I and I guess the rest of this list will be long
> time retired and sipping pina coladas and other good stuff (hot
> chocolate milk with whipcream and baileys anyone? :) in hawaii or some
> other heavenly place the day that the hardware and pipes are available
> to scan a si
Enjoy scanning, even I and I guess the rest of this list will be long
time retired and sipping pina coladas and other good stuff (hot
chocolate milk with whipcream and baileys anyone? :) in hawaii or some
other heavenly place the day that the hardware and pipes are available
to scan a single /64
Hi Folks,
I would like to keep you guys informed, The IX.PR, formerly known as
PRIX [what made us famous!] is going to be operational very soon , we
will be holding a launching fest & meeting related IX.PR , Benefits and
BOF Session at 22nd of November 2005, if you are near PR by any chance
and i
william(at)elan.net wrote:
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Peter Dambier wrote:
Moving sshd from port 22 to port 137, 138 or 139. Nasty eh?
Or run two daemons. One on port 22 does not allow ANY logins at all but
just tracks incoming connections and attempts (and possibly allows to
block-list them in r
Hi,
Summary: rbl.cluecentral.net moves to ascc.dnsbl.bit.nl per 1/Dec/2005.
When Sabri Berisha mailed nanog a couple of weeks ago that he would be
stopping his AS and CC DNSBL lists, I'm sure many users were somewhat
disappointed. Sabri has received a lot of feedback on the matter, but
has decid
38 matches
Mail list logo
