nanog mailing list archives
Re: netscan.org update
From: Troy Davis <troy () nack net>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 09:48:53 -0700
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Roeland M.J. Meyer <rmeyer () MHSC com> wrote:
I know that all of you are aware of this. Granted, each subsequently smaller subnet also limits the maximum number of hosts that will respond to the smurf trigger. The point is that, the web-site ONLY tests 0 and
Actually, that's often not the case. Through NAT and other modern marvels, it's possible to have massively overpopulated netblocks that all respond. The largest amplifier we've found yet was 170,000x (on a class C).
the script-kiddees already have a means to do so. Had I the time, I could write the code, the algorithm is trivial.
We've got the code to scan for them, but started with /24. In October or November, we'll probably scan to /27 boundaries. Also, there's now a list of amplifiers, sorted by ASN, rechecked and updated nightly. It's linked off the main netscan.org page. Cheers, Troy
Current thread:
- Re: netscan.org update, (continued)
- Re: netscan.org update Charles Sprickman (Sep 25)
- Re: netscan.org update Roland Dobbins (Sep 25)
- CEF RPF check w/ACLs (was: Re: netscan.org update) Tony Tauber (Sep 25)
- Re: CEF RPF check w/ACLs (was: Re: netscan.org update) James A. T. Rice (Sep 28)
- Message not available
- Re: CEF RPF check w/ACLs (was: Re: netscan.org update) Patrick W. Gilmore (Sep 28)
- Re: CEF RPF check w/ACLs (was: Re: netscan.org update) James A. T. Rice (Sep 28)
- Re: netscan.org update Roland Dobbins (Sep 25)
- RE: netscan.org update John Fraizer (Sep 26)
- Re: netscan.org update Troy Davis (Sep 26)
- RE: netscan.org update John Fraizer (Sep 26)