nanog mailing list archives
Re: Abuse.cc ???
From: Jeff Kell <jeff-kell () utc edu>
Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2003 00:55:58 -0500
McBurnett, Jim wrote:
I tell ya, what really gets me in a bad mood is when my PIX logs show the same IP address hitting port 80 on 25 different IP'sand the time line is 2 seconds start to finish.
Yesterday, I got word from a network operator that 50 entries was not sufficient. So I parsed 4 days's worth and sent them over 1200 messages from their block.. have not heard back yet..
Well, if you find out, let me know. On Apr 2 we had (among others): 101233 hits on 445 from 203 sources, 43465 hits on 139 from 218 sources, 14399 hits on 80 from 1922 sources, 12106 hits on 21 from 6 sources, etc. And we would barely qualify as a "small" operation...Then we have the nutcases than scan a dozen or so proxy ports per host on a /17 netblock (APNIC source space, usually).
Unless its a DoS and in the millions, I wonder how many outfits still give a flying fornication at a cyclically motivated glazed pastry anymore.
Jeff
Current thread:
- Re: Abuse.cc ???, (continued)
- Re: Abuse.cc ??? Frank Louwers (Apr 03)
- Re: Abuse.cc ??? Gerald (Apr 03)
- Re: Abuse.cc ??? Simon Lyall (Apr 04)
- Re: Abuse.cc ??? Dan Hollis (Apr 03)
- Re: Abuse.cc ??? Owen DeLong (Apr 03)
- Re: Abuse.cc ??? Dan Hollis (Apr 03)
- Re: Abuse.cc ??? Owen DeLong (Apr 04)
- Re: Abuse.cc ??? Gerald (Apr 03)
- Re: Abuse.cc ??? Frank Louwers (Apr 03)
- RE: Abuse.cc ??? Dan Hollis (Apr 04)
- Re: Abuse.cc ??? Jeff Kell (Apr 04)
- Re: Abuse.cc ??? Matthew S. Hallacy (Apr 05)
- Re: Abuse.cc ??? Jack Bates (Apr 05)