North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: smurf... still?
Dear Daniel, (B (BSorry that I have mislead you to the Hookup. (B (BAs you might know already, Hookup went backrupt a few months ago. (BAnd all what they had is NOW break into a few company's. (B (B (BI believe this might give you "real" start. (B (BAccording to nslookup, "hookup.net" is currently upated by (Bhookup.net nameserver = ns1.nbc.netcom.ca (Bhookup.net nameserver = ns2.nbc.netcom.ca (B (BSo, I lookup whois data base for netcom.ca. (BI got (B[No name] (NS18559-HST) (B (B Hostname: NS1.NBC.NETCOM.CA (B Address: 184.108.40.206 (B System: ? running ? (B (B Coordinator: (B Bignell, Graham (BG54-ORG) netcom@THE.ENTIRE.NET (B 416 341 5776 (BFax- - - 416 341 5725 (B (B Record last updated on 21-Jan-97. (B Database last updated on 8-Feb-98 04:14:24 EDT. (B (B (BSo, I think this might be a good start. (B (BI should have looked further before informed you. (B (B (Bregards, (B (Btatsuya (B (B------------------------------------------------ (B (B= = = = = = $BEEOC(B 03-3239-0607 fax 03-3239-2609 (Bbusiness network telecom (Bhttp://www.giganet.net (B (BOn Sun, 8 Feb 1998, Daniel Reed wrote: (B (B> On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, Tatsuya Kawasaki wrote: (B> ) On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Craig A. Huegen wrote: (B> ) > On Wed, 4 Feb 1998, Tatsuya Kawasaki wrote: (B> ) > mskucher is no longer with hookup; and, in fact, hookup has filed for (B> ) > bankruptcy, last I heard. (B> ) Daniel, (B> ) if you need information about upper provider or the letter (B> ) mskucher sent, please let me know. I think he also CC to nanog, too. (B> Welp, I've waited until now, and just tried again: (B> (B> root@narnia:~# ping -c2 220.127.116.11 (B> PING 18.104.22.168 (22.214.171.124): 56 data bytes (B> 64 bytes from 126.96.36.199: icmp_seq=0 ttl=243 time=365.8 ms (B> 64 bytes from 188.8.131.52: icmp_seq=0 ttl=242 time=459.9 ms (DUP!) (B> 64 bytes from 184.108.40.206: icmp_seq=0 ttl=242 time=462.0 ms (DUP!) (B> 64 bytes from 127.0.0.2: icmp_seq=0 ttl=242 time=463.8 ms (DUP!) (B> 64 bytes from 220.127.116.11: icmp_seq=0 ttl=242 time=466.9 ms (DUP!) (B> 64 bytes from 18.104.22.168: icmp_seq=0 ttl=242 time=496.9 ms (DUP!) (B> 64 bytes from 22.214.171.124: icmp_seq=0 ttl=242 time=506.9 ms (DUP!) (B> 64 bytes from 126.96.36.199: icmp_seq=0 ttl=242 time=537.0 ms (DUP!) (B> 64 bytes from 188.8.131.52: icmp_seq=0 ttl=242 time=556.9 ms (DUP!) (B> 64 bytes from 184.108.40.206: icmp_seq=0 ttl=242 time=576.7 ms (DUP!) (B> 64 bytes from 220.127.116.11: icmp_seq=1 ttl=242 time=288.5 ms (B> (B> --- 18.104.22.168 ping statistics --- (B> 2 packets transmitted, 2 packets received, +10 duplicates, 0% packet loss (B> round-trip min/avg/max = 288.5/477.3/576.7 ms (B> root@narnia:~# (B> (B> I originally contacted firstname.lastname@example.org (as per the output from whois (B> 165.154), but it appears they haven't fixed the problem. I'm unsure where (B> to go from here (should I contact Netcom, do you think?), but there was (B> only two networks listed in that smurf.c derivative that were susceptable (B> to being used in a smurf attack anyway, so I'm not really sure it's (B> entirely worthwhile persuing those two contacts. (B> (B> -- (B> Daniel Reed <email@example.com> (3CE060DD) (B> System administrator of narnia.n.ml.org (narnia.mhv.net [22.214.171.124]) (B> recursive (adj.) - See recursive. (B> (B>