nanog mailing list archives
Re: Government scrutiny is headed our way
From: Joe Shaw <jshaw () insync net>
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 00:23:02 -0500 (CDT)
On Sat, 20 Jun 1998, Henry Linneweh wrote:
Well DoS and smurf are only different in terms of the packet amounts and method to convey them, so in essence A smurf is another form of DoS on A larger scale. An existing law already covers that.
How do you come up with that? A DoS attack is anything that makes a resource on a host or network unusable. Let's remember that the whole point of the attack is to deny service, whether it be pop3 service with a syn flood or bandwidth with smurf, fraggle, or generic ping flood. A smurf attack is a DoS is a DoS is a DoS.
If A NOC refuses to obey the law and investigate on behalf of a paying client that DoS has occurred than they become party to a criminal act after the fact and are as guilty as the originator of the attack and can be held accountable and their staff can arrested and you have the right to sue for $4000.00 as do each one of your individual customers.
I've never heard a NOC say they wouldn't track it down, although I'm sure it's happened in the past. Mostly I've heard that a NOC was incapable of tracking it down because of router overhead. Not to mention the packets are almost always going to be traced back to the known smurf amplifiers. If it was easy to find people responsible for the operations of those nets and get them on the horn we could have had the smurf problem fixed a long time ago. I would like to see if taking one of those people into court for being an unknowing party to the crime would be effective.
Sometimes you have to look at what you have and realize how to use it for the benefit of the whole.
Indeed, but how many people want to invest the time and money involved in prosecuting a smurf attack? Has anyone successfully done it yet?
As for smurfs crossing international borders where such attacks generally occur from, A group representation to the FCC needs to be formed and the FCC needs then to communicate with its counterpart on the foreign soil using existing treaties that would make that a violation of non aggression pacts and interference in a foreign government and denial of its citizens to communicate pursuant to their constitution the right of free speech. In A technical sense smurfs from foreign shores are an act of war on networks of the United States by the purposeful intent to disrupt destroy and cripple its computer network infrastructure with A Smurfing mechanism. Henry R. Linneweh
What needs to happen is things like IPSec, ISAKMP, and Oakley become prime time so authenticating packets becomes a trivial issue. However, the U.S. Crypto Nazis make it impossible for it to be developed in this country because if it is, then it cannot be exported to other countries unless in a weakened state. I don't claim to be a crypto person, but when you think about how the game is played, getting to the real root of the problem may not be an answer you like. I'm as patriotic as the next guy [you can read that however you like], but for crypto authentication solutions to work our government needs to get their hands out of it. Joe Shaw - jshaw () insync net NetAdmin - Insync Internet Services
Current thread:
- Re: Government scrutiny is headed our way, (continued)
- Re: Government scrutiny is headed our way Dalvenjah FoxFire (Jun 16)
- Re: Government scrutiny is headed our way Mo (Jun 16)
- Technical solutions to tracing Michael Dillon (Jun 16)
- Re: Government scrutiny is headed our way Curt Howland (Jun 16)
- Re: Government scrutiny is headed our way Karl Denninger (Jun 16)
- Re: Government scrutiny is headed our way David R. Conrad (Jun 16)
- Re: Government scrutiny is headed our way Karl Denninger (Jun 17)
- Re: Government scrutiny is headed our way Alex P. Rudnev (Jun 17)
- Re: Government scrutiny is headed our way Hal Murray (Jun 20)
- Re: Government scrutiny is headed our way Henry Linneweh (Jun 20)
- Re: Government scrutiny is headed our way Joe Shaw (Jun 20)
- Re: Government scrutiny is headed our way Henry Linneweh (Jun 21)
- Re: Government scrutiny is headed our way Brian Wallingford (Jun 21)
- Re: Government scrutiny is headed our way Dean Robb (Jun 23)
- NANOG 13 Videos on-line Jeffrey Payne (Jun 23)
- Re: Government scrutiny is headed our way Karl Denninger (Jun 16)
- Re: Government scrutiny is headed our way Joe Shaw (Jun 21)
- Re: Government scrutiny is headed our way Brett Frankenberger (Jun 21)
- Re: Government scrutiny is headed our way Joe Shaw (Jun 22)
- smurf amplifier vs one workstation Brian Pape (Jun 22)
- Re: Government scrutiny is headed our way Hal Murray (Jun 22)
- Re: Government scrutiny is headed our way Karl Denninger (Jun 22)