North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: On the back of other 'security' posts....
Owen DeLong wrote:
Yet more spoofed traffic aimed at the SORBS nameservers - this timeThe ISPs aren't who should be sued.
Any irresponsible party should be in the firing line.
The people running vulnerable systems generating the DDOS traffic and the company providing the Exploding Pinto should be sued. An ISPs job is to forward IP traffic on a best effort basis to the destination address contained in the header of the datagram.
I disagree, they should forward valid traffic
The depends squarely on their contract, and do contracts say 'we will forward all your traffic including that which is designed to force others off the net'?Any other behavior can be construed as a breach of contract.
Sure, blockingIn the fact that if an ISP has a customer (a single peered ISP or or enduser) that is sending traffic from addresses that they are not permitted to use publically, they should be blocked and told not to do it again...
I remember a _long_ time ago (1991) when I was signed up with my first ISP in the UK a friend and I were experimenting with SYN, UDP and ICMP spoofed traffic, flooding each other (on different ISPs) I got a mail from ISP security telling me to stop within 24 hours, none of the traffic got off their network. Following that, my friend dialed into his account on the same ISP as me, and we continued the tests and next thing I know I got booted for having been warned --- security didn't care that we were doing it to each other with permission etc.....
Now I know the net has grown a lot since then, however my ISP did have more than 17k customers at the time... However if they blocked all traffic that didn't originate from the customer back then how come 12 years later some ISPs still continue to allow spoofed traffic from their customers knowing full well that traffic is invalid and likely attacking something.
Where the packet is sourced from 1 network and is addressed as from another network I do not consider that as 'correctly formatted'In the mean time a plea to people on this list in all countries - watch for the DDoS attacks (particually against 22.214.171.124, 126.96.36.199, 188.8.131.52 & 184.108.40.206) and stop the damn traffic before you are held responsible for your customers actions. There is still a 10k pps SYN flood occuring 8 hours later - this is being rate limited upstream.Again, I just don't see where an ISP can or should be held liable for forwarding what appears to be a correctly formatted datagram with a valid destination address.
This is the desired behavior and without it, the internet stops working.
The problem is systems with consistent andSuing M$ will not solve the problem. Look at the remidies the DoJ set - M$ just completely ignored them and carried on. M$ is too big now, they will continue to do as they see fit and there is noone powerful enough in the market to stop them. This is not about M$ bashing though - its about non carriers originating spoofed traffic and not caring.