On Aug 5, 2006, at 3:17 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
Hopefully, by their nature SPs will always be a bit reactive. Unless
I want them to, I don't want SPs messing with my traffic. Its my
right
to connect anything I want, send anything I want, do anything I
want with
my Internet connection. On
On Sat, 5 Aug 2006, Danny McPherson wrote:
> Right, hence my point. By and large, SPs don't have the time or
> resources to police the greater Internet, and therefore, they respond
> in a very reactive fashion when some malicious activity *that* warrants
> action dictates. Taking out known botne
For the record folks I did get a response from the appropriate parties,
and wasy very pleased given the time of day in your part of the world.
Cheers all.
Mark.
Mark Foster wrote:
Anyone from the above providers watching?
I'm trying to draw attention to a phishing scam originating from
2
On Aug 4, 2006, at 12:00 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
useless...
perhaps. i'm partly of the mind that botnets, p2p networks, manets,
and other self-organizing systems are the "wave" of the future (or
even the
present) and the technologies, per se, are not inherently "evil" or
ev
AFAIK, you don't need to have to have someone onsite to trip a breakerif
it doesn't do it automatically, there are a multitude of SCADA systems
available to manuaully flip them on. Unless, of course, the
electromechanical components that physically flip the breaker over have
failed.
Frank
-
Mike Callahan wrote:
> Sorry for the OT post but I'm wondering if anyone can recommend a
> good list for ISP level VoIP discussion. On that's focus is on
> technical issues would be preferred.
Speaking of SP and VoIP, I've just posted my BlackHat Briefings
slides on Carrier VoIP Security here (P
Anyone from the above providers watching?
I'm trying to draw attention to a phishing scam originating from
205.234.128.0/17 - 'Micfo.com LLC'.
Their host / upstream appear to be servercentral.net and theres a
reference to an Equinix datacentre in Chicago.
The +1-866 number listed doesn't a
