nanog mailing list archives
Re: TCP-AMP DDoS Attack - Fake abuse reports problem
From: Töma Gavrichenkov <ximaera () gmail com>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 02:22:18 +0300
Peace, On Fri, Feb 21, 2020, 1:57 AM Filip Hruska <fhr () fhrnet eu> wrote:
[..] OVH has been offering DDOS protection capable of soaking up hundreds of gigabits+ per second as a standard with all their services for a long time
They only do it for common trivial vectors like UDP-based amplification — and other types easily handleable through flowspec. Which is honestly not their fault because they try to keep their costs down. (Other means to keep the costs down may be of concern of Ronald G. though, but that's a different story.) However, TCP amplification is not of that sort. -- Töma
Current thread:
- TCP-AMP DDoS Attack - Fake abuse reports problem Octolus Development (Feb 20)
- Re: TCP-AMP DDoS Attack - Fake abuse reports problem Töma Gavrichenkov (Feb 20)
- Message not available
- Re: Forest HQ Has Received Your Message: Re: TCP-AMP DDoS Attack - Fake abuse reports problem Töma Gavrichenkov (Feb 20)
- Message not available
- Re: TCP-AMP DDoS Attack - Fake abuse reports problem Filip Hruska (Feb 20)
- Re: TCP-AMP DDoS Attack - Fake abuse reports problem Töma Gavrichenkov (Feb 20)
- Re: TCP-AMP DDoS Attack - Fake abuse reports problem Jean | ddostest.me via NANOG (Feb 20)
- Re: TCP-AMP DDoS Attack - Fake abuse reports problem Damian Menscher via NANOG (Feb 20)
- Re: TCP-AMP DDoS Attack - Fake abuse reports problem Tom Beecher (Feb 21)
- Re: TCP-AMP DDoS Attack - Fake abuse reports problem Bottiger (Feb 24)
- Re: TCP-AMP DDoS Attack - Fake abuse reports problem Töma Gavrichenkov (Feb 20)
- Re: TCP-AMP DDoS Attack - Fake abuse reports problem Damian Menscher via NANOG (Feb 20)
- Re: TCP-AMP DDoS Attack - Fake abuse reports problem Amir Herzberg (Feb 21)
- Re: TCP-AMP DDoS Attack - Fake abuse reports problem Denys Fedoryshchenko (Feb 21)