Trouble connecting to wechat.com

Hi, Is anyone having trouble connecting to wechat? Our network can't reach wechat.com and seems was blocked by firewall. I tried to contact their hostmaster and not replied yet. Here is the traceroute from our network: Tracing route to wechat.com [203.205.147.173] over a maximum of 30 hops:

Re: Wanted: volunteers with bandwidth/storage to help save climate data

i mind not one iota to store some on my computer but it won't be accessible because i don't want to publish it until i can get a dedicated server On 2016-12-22 09:17 PM, Randy Bush wrote: "If it's a politically-generated thing I'll have to deal with at an operational level, it's on topic."

Re: Wanted: volunteers with bandwidth/storage to help save climate data

>> "If it's a politically-generated thing I'll have to deal with at an >> operational level, it's on topic." > Hmm.. works for me. and do not omit the amplification attack of endless rinse repeat of self-righteous pontification of what people should and should not post randy

Re: Recent NTP pool traffic increase

Sorry if I wasn't being clear. What I mostly meant is that there should be a regulated, industry-wide effort in order to provide a stable and active pool program. With the current models, a protocol that is widely used by commercial devices is being supported by the time and effort of

Re: Recent NTP pool traffic increase

On 12/22/16 5:25 PM, Royce Williams wrote: > On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Harlan Stenn wrote: > >> This sort of misconfiguration will happen and the NTP Pool Project >> clearly isn't the place to solve this problem overall. It *is* >> something NTF is in a position to

Re: Recent NTP pool traffic increase

On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Harlan Stenn wrote: > This sort of misconfiguration will happen and the NTP Pool Project > clearly isn't the place to solve this problem overall. It *is* > something NTF is in a position to address. Harlan, could you be more specific about how

Re: Recent NTP pool traffic increase

On 12/22/16 4:11 PM, Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote: >> On Dec 20, 2016, at 8:02 PM, Harlan Stenn >> wrote: >> >>> On 12/20/16 7:27 PM, Laurent Dumont wrote: To be honest, the fact >>> that NTP is still something managed by volunteers and not a >>> regulated entity (a bit like DNS)

Re: Recent NTP pool traffic increase

> On Dec 20, 2016, at 8:02 PM, Harlan Stenn wrote: > >> On 12/20/16 7:27 PM, Laurent Dumont wrote: >> To be honest, the fact that NTP is still something managed by volunteers >> and not a regulated entity (a bit like DNS) is mind boggling. > > Time *is* managed by regulated

Re: Recent NTP pool traffic increase (update)

Hello, Those servers aren’t (and have never been) part of the NTP Pool - https://www.ntppool.org/en/ If they were you could remove them from the system and over the next hours, days and months the traffic would go away. We also have features to change the relative amount of clients you get

Re: [Tier1 ISP]: Vulnerable to a new DDoS amplification attack

Whoa. Default route loop, thats definitely new ;) Protip: always do prior works research. On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 7:56 PM, Tom Beecher wrote: > Jean sent me details. I won't share the link or password to it based on his > request, but he hasn't found anything new, and

Re: [Tier1 ISP] : Vulnerable to a new DDoS amplification attack

On 22 Dec 2016, at 23:56, Tom Beecher wrote: What he did was send 1500 byte ICMP packets with a max TTL at an IP address that is not reachable due to a routing loop. Same here. Here's some context I sent him:

Re: [Tier1 ISP]: Vulnerable to a new DDoS amplification attack

Jean sent me details. I won't share the link or password to it based on his request, but he hasn't found anything new, and it's not even amplification at all. What he did was send 1500 byte ICMP packets with a max TTL at an IP address that is not reachable due to a routing loop. No amplification

Re: [Tier1 ISP]: Vulnerable to a new DDoS amplification attack

On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Ken Chase wrote: > Maybe he's found what's already known and posted 2 months ago (and every 2 > months?) > on nanog, the TCP 98,000x amplifier (which is a little higher than 100x), > among > dozens of misbehaving devices, all >200x amp. > >

Re: Canada joins the 21st century !

Jean-Francois Mezei wrote on 12/22/2016 8:59 AM: ... Yesterday, the CRTC declared the Internet to be a basic service (which enables additional regulatory powers) and set speed goals to 50/10. Note that this is not a definition of broadband as the FCC had done, it one of many criteria that will

Re: [Tier1 ISP]: Vulnerable to a new DDoS amplification attack

Maybe he's found what's already known and posted 2 months ago (and every 2 months?) on nanog, the TCP 98,000x amplifier (which is a little higher than 100x), among dozens of misbehaving devices, all >200x amp. https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/woot14/woot14-kuhrer.pdf (Table 1's

Canada joins the 21st century !

This is more of an FYI. Yesterday, the CRTC released a big decision on broadband. In 2011, the same process resulted in CRTC to not declare the Internet as "basic service" and to set speed goals to 1990s 5/1. Yesterday, the CRTC declared the Internet to be a basic service (which enables

Re: [Tier1 ISP]: Vulnerable to a new DDoS amplification attack

Aside from the 'that's not layer 4' point that's already been made, I feel obligated to point out that if you were advised to 'privately disclose to some big players', the NANOG list is pretty much the exact opposite of that. This is a very public list. My paranoid brain doesn't want to

Re: [Tier1 ISP]: Vulnerable to a new DDoS amplification attack

Skepticism is of course warranted with such bold claims and little public information to back it up. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP - Original Message - From: "Alexander Lyamin" To: "Mike

Re: [Tier1 ISP] : Vulnerable to a new DDoS amplification attack

On 22 Dec 2016, at 20:27, Jean | ddostest.me via NANOG wrote: the already known Layer 4 amp DDoS like dns, ntp, ssdp, snmp These are layer-7 reflection/amplification attacks - i.e., application-layer - *not* layer-4. --- Roland Dobbins

Re: [Tier1 ISP]: Vulnerable to a new DDoS amplification attack

On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Tom Beecher wrote: > > In that absence of anything more than 'GUYZ THIS IS SERIOUS' , with no > technical details, you can surely understand the skepticism. > > Exactly my thought. Tingling sensation "this is some kind of fraud". --

Re: [Tier1 ISP]: Vulnerable to a new DDoS amplification attack

I just reviewed our data at http://radar.qrator.net provided network list. I am highly skeptical. On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: > Let's wait and see if his stated message of being here to discuss > technical matters of the vulnerability with the

Re: [Tier1 ISP]: Vulnerable to a new DDoS amplification attack

Let's wait and see if his stated message of being here to discuss technical matters of the vulnerability with the aforementioned carriers bears anything out. If not, don the torches. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP -

Re: [Tier1 ISP]: Vulnerable to a new DDoS amplification attack

I am saying! As far as I understand you are offering DDoS attacks as a paid service, right? Some people would say that you offer DDoS for hire. What is the difference between your service and a Booter service. Only a “validation" that your client is “stress testing” him/herself does not make

Re: [Tier1 ISP]: Vulnerable to a new DDoS amplification attack

I apologize for my previous email. After a second thought it might sound like it's a booter even though I want to offer something else. I don't want the conversation shifting toward business when we talk about a new DDoS technique that operate at Layer 3 with amplification power x100. I

Re: [Tier1 ISP]: Vulnerable to a new DDoS amplification attack

You're claiming to be able to generate more than 10 times as much traffic as the largest DDoS ever seen in the wild whilst 3 months into a position at a company that sells 'self-DDoS' services for testing purposes. In that absence of anything more than 'GUYZ THIS IS SERIOUS' , with no technical

Re: [Tier1 ISP]: Vulnerable to a new DDoS amplification attack

I admit that I have a lot of guts. Not sure who said that I am a booter or that I operate a booter. I fight booter since more than 5 years and who would be stupid enough to put his full name with full address to a respected network operators list? Definitely not me. I want to help and fix

Re: [Tier1 ISP]: Vulnerable to a new DDoS amplification attack

Hi Jean, You are either naive or have a lot of guts to offer a Booter service in one of the most respected network operators list. Man, as long as you use amplifiers (third party services) or botnets your “service” is illegal & immoral. In case you use your own infrastructure or rent a legal

Re: Recent NTP pool traffic increase (update)

Hello. I operate the public NTP Service as 133.100.9.2 and 133.100.11.8 at Fukuoka University, Japan. I have a lot of trouble with too much NTP traffic from many routers which 133.100.9.2 as default setting of NTP has been set like Tenda or LB-Link etc. So, although I'd like to contact Firmware

Re: [Tier1 ISP]: Vulnerable to a new DDoS amplification attack

nice one, Edward. On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Edward Dore < edward.d...@freethought-internet.co.uk> wrote: > Depending on which bit of PSINET Jean is talking about, that could be > Cogent. > > Edward Dore > Freethought Internet > > On 22 Dec 2016, at 06:51, Alexander Lyamin

Re: [Tier1 ISP]: Vulnerable to a new DDoS amplification attack

Depending on which bit of PSINET Jean is talking about, that could be Cogent. Edward Dore Freethought Internet > On 22 Dec 2016, at 06:51, Alexander Lyamin wrote: > > I am just trying to grasp what is similarity between networks on the list > and why it doesn't include, say