North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: monkeys.dom UPL being DDOSed to death
Joe St Sauver wrote:
Note that not all DNSBLs are being effectively hit. DNSBLs which run withActually, SBL has had a lot of issues. The issue isn't always with the dns zones. It is true that one can distribute the zones to make dDOS more difficult; although not impossible. However, in the case of SBL, they have had issues with the web servers being dDOS'd. The ability to lookup why a host is blacklisted, and in the case of relay/proxy lists to request removal, is also important.
There are still a lot of blacklists out there; njabl, ordb, dsbl, reynolds, sbl, and spews (in a round about sort of way). Yet what happens when a business desides to destroy his competitor's website? What happens when someone decides they don't like magazine X or vendor X and attacks their web farms? Shall the Internet be called akamai? Don't get me wrong. It's a good service, but not invulnerable. windowsupdate.com can still be brought to it's knees if the attacker is persistant enough.
Of course, when big money businesses are involved, things get done. Yet what about the smaller business or the charity? What about critical infrastructure? Does anyone claim that MAE East and West couldn't be made inoperational by dDOS? How does that shift the network and peering? What are the ramifications?
Of the various RPC worms, spybot is the most malicious in intent. Yet what if parts of Swen/Gibe/Sobig.F were incorporated into blaster. Process terminations to make repair difficult and to open the computer to other viruses and vulnerabilites. Installed proxy servers and bots. Keyloggers. Now collect your information, gather your bots, and watch a single phrase create destruction.
Things have not improved over the last year. They have gotten worse. The Internet is more malicious than ever. It is quickly becoming the Inner City Projects of communication. Greed and hatred created some of the worst neighborhoods in the world. The same concept will apply to network. If action isn't taken, it will get worse. More money will be lost over the coming years. Many people will be hurt. Communication will be impaired.
Question: Why is it not illegal for an ISP to allow a known vulnerable host to stay connected and not even bother contacting the owner? There are civil remedies that can be sought but no criminal. Bear in mind, these "vulnerable" hosts are usually in the process of performing malicious activity when they are reported.
Ron has reported many of the IP addresses that dDOS'd monkeys.com. Under the same token, Ron has also reported to many ISP's about spammers which have abused servers under his control, scanning and utilizing open proxies; which is theft of resources. Why is nothing done about these people? Why is the ISP not held liable for allowing the person to continue in such malicious activity?