nanog mailing list archives
Re: IoT security
From: clinton mielke <clinton.mielke () gmail com>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 22:19:01 -0800
Yup! All the mapping Ive done is over port 80. Id have a lot more than I currently have if I was looking at other ports, probably. On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 10:00 PM, <valdis.kletnieks () vt edu> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Feb 2017 21:04:07 -0800, clinton mielke said:As an ISP, scan your customers netrange, and notify customers with known vulnerable devices. With regards to the current Mirai threat, theresonly ahandful of devices that are the most critical importance. IE, biggest fraction of the infected host pie.Do enough of these poorly designed devices punch themselves a UPNP hole in the CPE firewall and make themselves detectable, to make this a viable approach?
Current thread:
- Re: IoT security, (continued)
- Re: IoT security Randy Bush (Feb 07)
- Re: IoT security Richard (Feb 07)
- Re: IoT security Ed Lopez (Feb 08)
- Re: IoT security Rich Kulawiec (Feb 08)
- Re: IoT security William Herrin (Feb 08)
- Re: IoT security Damian Menscher (Feb 08)
- Re: IoT security William Herrin (Feb 08)
- Re: IoT security Carl Byington (Feb 08)
- Re: IoT security clinton mielke (Feb 08)
- Re: IoT security valdis . kletnieks (Feb 08)
- Re: IoT security clinton mielke (Feb 08)
- Re: IoT security valdis . kletnieks (Feb 09)
- Re: IoT security clinton mielke (Feb 09)
- Re: IoT security Marco Slater (Feb 10)
- Re: IoT security clinton mielke (Feb 10)
- Re: IoT security clinton mielke (Feb 10)
- Re: IoT security Rich Kulawiec (Feb 09)
- Re: IoT security William Herrin (Feb 09)
- Re: IoT security valdis . kletnieks (Feb 09)
- Re: IoT security bzs (Feb 09)
- Re: IoT security William Herrin (Feb 07)