Re: netscan.org update

[John Payne <john () sackheads org>]

On Tue, Sep 26, 2000 at 04:19:03PM -0400, John Fraizer wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, John Payne wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 26, 2000 at 01:13:35AM -0400, John Fraizer wrote:
> > > The problem is that while some operators may not have been aware of their
> > > problem, if they are not aware of the problem at-large, they are, IMHO,
> > > not worthy of announcing to the global internet at large and as such,
> > > we should not be listening to their announcements.
> >
> > So you wouldn't mind if people started scanning your network for other
> > problems, say... rootable boxes?  Without being able to break into remote
> > boxes, kiddies wouldn't be able to launch smurf attacks of sizes to worry
> > about.
>
> random and not-so-random scans against our network are met with quite a
> few suprises for the scanner.  It's NOT an exercise that I recommend.  As
> a matter of fact, it's quite a BAD idea.

So why are you advocating scanning for smurf amps?

> Beyond that, your assumption is completely in error about the kiddies
> needing rooted boxes to launch successful and quite large SMURF
> attacks.  DSL and cable modems make it quite easy for them to do so.

Oh... well... not having experience with cable or dsl, I had assumed that
cable and dsl were source filtered.  My bad


-- 
John Payne      http://www.sackheads.org/jpayne/    john () sackheads org
http://www.sackheads.org/uce/                    Fax: +44 870 0547954
        To send me mail, use the address in the From: header