nanog mailing list archives

Re: We have a firewall (was Re: Pakistan government orders ISPservice level agreement)


From: "Christopher L. Morrow" <chris () UU NET>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 03:42:57 +0000 (GMT)



On Tue, 6 May 2003, Scott Granados wrote:


Unless you actually call UUnet and your not a customer, God help you then.

The problem is that ALL isp's (large ones atleast) are setup to handle
direct customers only. They expect downstreams of downstreams to call the
downstream first :( There is authentication information setup and ready to
figure out that Scott from Internap is in fact Scott from Internap and not
Scott from wworks :( This impedes the process for some situations, like
attacks. It also protects the direct customer and the customer's customer
from social engineering attacks.


Some companies are very very good at dealing with DDOS, Internap being one
and UUNET if you are a customer another.  Even a post here although maybe
not exactly proper will get you responses from people like Chris and so on
who can and will be helpful.

There are other ways to get in touch with me or brian or with other ISP's.
In the last few months some outside folks have started getting together
some cross provider contact methods. These are making contact much
easier for things of this sort. Apparently the Gov't gotten onto the tip
that there is little if any interprovider communications :( (Atleast for
security)

So, the long and the short of it is things are getting better...


----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Rosenthal" <pr () isprime com>
To: "E.B. Dreger" <eddy+public+spam () noc everquick net>; <nanog () merit edu>
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 5:02 PM
Subject: Re: We have a firewall (was Re: Pakistan government orders
ISPservice level agreement)



On 5/6/03 7:51 PM, "E.B. Dreger" <eddy+public+spam () noc everquick net>
wrote:


SD> Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 19:28:48 -0400 (EDT)
SD> From: Sean Donelan


SD> The Pakistan Telecommunications Company Ltd has aquired a
SD> firewall to solve the DDOS situation impacting Internet
SD> service in the country.  An unnamed security advisor asserted
SD> the proper use of a firewall would control the DDOS attacks
SD> and prevent hacking.

Now the DDoS melts the pipes _and_ the firewall.  I'd like to
know if said "consultant" ever considered recommending the PTC
contact their upstreams for help with backtrace/blocking.  Anyone
with a modicum of clue (or Google access) should figure out that
one...

Not every upstream is as clueful as Uunet, and not every noc employee is
as
clueful as Chris and Brian at UUnet.

It has been my experience that most upstreams have no concept that they
CAN
backtrace, and generally have no interest in helping you do it.  I'm not
mudslinging here, so I won't say who my experience is with, but a few
transitless/near transitless upstreams I've dealt with were most
unhelpful,
either because they didn't know how to help, or worse, they did know how
to
help and didn't care.

And, depending on the nature of the DDoS attack, perhaps it isn't related
to
saturation, but rather to overloading router processors, or something else
that can effectively be filtered customer-side?

Our policy as of late has just been to make sure we have equipment on our
side fast enough to filter at wire speed, and get enough capacity to our
upstreams that it is signifigantly unlikely that anyone could generate
enough traffic to saturate it (in which case, we would have no choice but
to
ask carriers to filter, and backtrace).

--Phil
ISPrime

Eddy
--
Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division
Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building
Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national
Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT)
From: A Trap <blacklist () brics com>
To: blacklist () brics com
Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature.

These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots.
Do NOT send mail to <blacklist () brics com>, or you are likely to
be blocked.






Current thread: