On Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 09:11:58PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>
> Your argument is similar to a mall that claims they can shoot people who
> don't buy anything. After all, their only obligation is to those who pay
> them. But of course neither you nor they can do that. By setting up a
> n
> Obligation to _whom_? My only obligations are to those who _pay_ me for
> access to my systems/resources. If the people who *do* pay me for use of
> my systems/resources "don't want" that cr*p, then I do 'have an
> obligation'
> to _not_ deliver that traffic.
Nonsense. You have tort
Scott Morris wrote:
"E-mail rest in peace?
That is what I tried to indicate.
An exchange somewhere (I can't now find it) went something like:
God is dead - Nietzsche
Nietzsche is dead - God
Email is dead - Larry
To which I added that it will someday be
Larry is dead - Email
Not that I have a whole lot to add (other than we're spending lots of time
talking about something only affecting UK --:> US flights at this moment)...
But I was intrigued by your latin there.
"E-mail rest in peace?
A cause does not create/allow action? "
My memories from high school are a tad
joe mcguckin wrote:
Why not put critical or proprietary files on a flash key? I carry a 4G
flash key on my keyring. Airport security has never given it a second
look. If the laptop ends up in the hands of a sticky-fingered baggage
handler (or the TSA), there's nothing there for them to find.
Why not put critical or proprietary files on a flash key? I carry a 4G flash key on my keyring. Airport security has never given it a secondlook. If the laptop ends up in the hands of a sticky-fingered baggage handler (or the TSA), there's nothing there for them to find.And, to defeat the nosey cu
My personal opinion is that _some_ bitnet issues are indeed
relevant to the NANOG list, but that's just me. :-)
I mean, it _does_ affect network ops at times...
- ferg
-- Thomas Kuehling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dear Fergie,
On So, 2006-08-13 at 21:49 +, Fergie wrote:
> For what it's w
Dear Fergie,
On So, 2006-08-13 at 21:49 +, Fergie wrote:
> For what it's worth, there _is_ a botnet discussison list:
>
> General information about the mailing list is at:
>
> http://www.whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/botnets
thanks, didn't know about it. But isn't it still usefu
Sean Donelan wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote:
This morning's Omaha Weird Harold has a front-page item about the City
installing free wiffy hotspots around town. It may be time for you to
reconsider the options on the buggy-whip plant.
Any information about how t
For what it's worth, there _is_ a botnet discussison list:
General information about the mailing list is at:
http://www.whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/botnets
- ferg
-- Thomas Kuehling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dear all,
On So, 2006-08-13 at 15:17 -0600, Danny McPherson wrote:
>
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote:
This morning's Omaha Weird Harold has a front-page item about the City
installing free wiffy hotspots around town. It may be time for you to
reconsider the options on the buggy-whip plant.
Any information about how the City plans to solve
Dear all,
On So, 2006-08-13 at 15:17 -0600, Danny McPherson wrote:
> Interestingly enough, I lurk here 99.999% of the time. I comment
> on this thread and folks ask to move it to a non-SP mailing list?
> Perhaps
> non-operational, but this certainly has direct implications on SPs and
> I'm of
On Aug 13, 2006, at 1:02 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
which is, please move these threads to a non-SP mailing list.
R [ 41: Danny McPherson ] Re: mitigating botnet C&Cs has
become useless
R [ 22: "Laurence F. Sheldon]
R < 45: Danny McPherson >
R [ 62: "Laurence F.
Though placing a /32 to a discarded interface helps the situation, you are
now fully disabling your client that uses the /32... I do agree that it
definitely helps the situation... specially when the attack is a few mil
pps or perhaps even few gigs/sec in which case a customer /32 or bigger
bei
Paul Vixie wrote:
which is, please move these threads to a non-SP mailing list.
R [ 41: Danny McPherson ] Re: mitigating botnet C&Cs has become useless
R [ 22: "Laurence F. Sheldon]
R < 45: Danny McPherson >
R [ 62: "Laurence F. Sheldon]
R [ 162: "J. Oquendo"
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006, Michael Nicks wrote:
> attack, and mitigate/stop the traffic. I think it certainly is possible
> to accomplish this on a per-router level, but being able to have the
> devices communicate and share information between one another is a
> completely separate thing. (New protoc
>
> which is, please move these threads to a non-SP mailing list.
>
> R [ 41: Danny McPherson ] Re: mitigating botnet C&Cs has become
> useless
> R [ 22: "Laurence F. Sheldon]
> R < 45: Danny McPherson >
> R [ 62: "Laurence F. Sheldon]
> R [ 162: "J. Oquendo"
which is, please move these threads to a non-SP mailing list.
R [ 41: Danny McPherson ] Re: mitigating botnet C&Cs has become useless
R [ 22: "Laurence F. Sheldon]
R < 45: Danny McPherson >
R [ 62: "Laurence F. Sheldon]
R [ 162: "J. Oquendo"] Re: [Full-
I hate to stir the flames again, but this idea sounds a lot like RBLs. :)
All kidding aside, I'm curious as to when we will reach the point where
the devices of our networks will be able to share information regarding
sporadic bursts or predefined traffic patterns in network traffic within
a
Danny McPherson wrote:
On Aug 13, 2006, at 8:35 AM, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote:
Danny McPherson wrote:
As importantly, broadband SPs are trying to move to triple (quad)
play services, how tolerant do you think your average subscriber
is to losing cable television services because their
Ive been reading on this subject for the last several weeks and it seems
as if everyone just like to come up with out of the box ideas that are
not realistic for todays network environments
>> J.Oquendo, thanks for the Smurf example
as there are still
admins/engineers at large networks that
> Subject: what can be done with botnet C&C's?
> "I work on this [C&C] for 30 days, only to find out one of you took it
> down." -- US Federal Agent, two days ago, ISOI (DA Workshop).
Oddly agents have resources right in front of them to assist them
(CALEA, and other totalitarian laws) and yet
On Aug 13, 2006, at 8:35 AM, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote:
Danny McPherson wrote:
As importantly, broadband SPs are trying to move to triple (quad)
play services, how tolerant do you think your average subscriber is
to losing cable television services because their kid downloaded some
mal
Danny McPherson wrote:
As importantly, broadband SPs are trying to move to triple (quad)
play services, how tolerant do you think your average subscriber is
to losing cable television services because their kid downloaded some
malware?
At least one of us would applaud an effort to hold people
On Aug 9, 2006, at 4:04 AM, Arjan Hulsebos wrote:
Maybe so, but that argument doesn't buy me more helpdesk folks. The
same holds true for the bandwidth argument, especially now that
bandwidth is dirt cheap.
On the other hand, it shouldn't be too difficult to come up with a
walled garden pro
25 matches
Mail list logo
