Security Incidents mailing list archives
Re: Analysis: AboveNet attacks
From: viha () CRYPTLINK NET (Ville)
Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 13:46:59 +0300
On Tue, 2 May 2000, Robert Graham wrote:
[...] I would really hate it if AboveNet cracked down on their openness policy.
Agreed. A well ran service/network has generally [almost] nothing to hide. Personally, I have found troubleshooting has all chances of becoming a bit of a mess otherwise. The amount of people wanting to misuse that information and with the actual capability of acting upon it for their own benefit is rather slim. The elite-intruders you mention would be likely to receive the data via another route, anyway. ie a bit of scripting along with a snitch with the customer-only website. Though, admittedly, there is no need to tell people things that do not directly concern them. Be it the staff-only data# of the NOC or a list of workstations running there... .-) Even if there are not many individuals wanting to misuse the info, better not take any unneeded risks.
Rob.
-- Ville(viha () cryptlink net, 'Cryptlink Networking');
Current thread:
- Re: Analysis: AboveNet attacks Richard Bejtlich (May 01)
- Re: Analysis: AboveNet attacks Robert Graham (May 02)
- Re: Analysis: AboveNet attacks Ville (May 06)
- Re: Analysis: AboveNet attacks Paul Cardon (May 02)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Analysis: AboveNet attacks Laura Taylor (May 03)
- Re: Analysis: AboveNet attacks Robert G. Ferrell (May 04)
- Re: Analysis: AboveNet attacks Filip M. Gieszczykiewicz (May 08)
- Re: Analysis: AboveNet attacks Robert Graham (May 02)