nanog mailing list archives
Re: de-peering for security sake
From: Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl () gmail com>
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2015 16:19:15 +0100
On 26 December 2015 at 16:09, Stephen Satchell <list () satchell net> wrote:
On 12/26/2015 06:19 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:How much is an acceptable standard to the community? Individual /32s ( or /64s)? Some tipping point where 50% of a /24 (or whatever it's IPv6 equivalent would be) has made your naughty list that you block the whole prefix?My gauge is volume of obnoxious traffic. When I get lots of SSH probes from a /32, I block the /32. When I get lots of SSH probes across a range of a /24, I block the /24.
Do you people have nothing better to do than scan firewall log files and insert rules to block stuff that was already blocked by default? Hint: if ssh probes spams your log then move your ssh service to a non standard port. Regards, Baldur
Current thread:
- Re: de-peering for security sake, (continued)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Nick Hilliard (Dec 25)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Daniel Corbe (Dec 25)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Mike Hammett (Dec 25)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Stephen Satchell (Dec 25)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Daniel Corbe (Dec 25)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Daniel Corbe (Dec 25)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Owen DeLong (Dec 25)
- Message not available
- Re: de-peering for security sake Owen DeLong (Dec 25)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Mike Hammett (Dec 26)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Stephen Satchell (Dec 26)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Baldur Norddahl (Dec 26)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Mike Hammett (Dec 26)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Joe Abley (Dec 26)
- Re: de-peering for security sake William Waites (Dec 26)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Owen DeLong (Dec 26)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Matthew Petach (Dec 26)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Owen DeLong (Dec 26)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Valdis . Kletnieks (Dec 26)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Baldur Norddahl (Dec 26)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Owen DeLong (Dec 26)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Baldur Norddahl (Dec 26)