nanog mailing list archives
Re: Abuse Departments
From: Avleen Vig <lists-nanog () silverwraith com>
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 09:12:30 -0700
On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 10:33:18AM -0500, Bryan Heitman wrote:
Would you perhaps have more underlying problems if a "script kiddie" on a dialup can attack you in such a way to impact your service?
Bryan, I don't mean to be rude, but it sounds like you don't understand the way the "script kiddies" operate. A dialup is more than sufficient. Generally the attacker will have a number of compromised servers/home PC's/workstations, etc, at their disposal. Each has been infected with a particular type of trojan horse, which allow the abuser to control the compromised machine. The abuse can then instruct these tens, or hundreds, or thousands, or now tens to hundreds of thousands of machines, to performa an attack against a target. Thus, the executor sits back on their dialup, which networks around the world fight with each otehr to stay alive - the attacks for running out of upstream bandwidth, and the victims for running out of downstream.
Current thread:
- Re: Abuse Departments, (continued)
- Re: Abuse Departments Andrew D Kirch (Oct 11)
- Re: Abuse Departments Christopher L. Morrow (Oct 11)
- Re: Abuse Departments Matthew S. Hallacy (Oct 11)
- Re: Abuse Departments Matt (Oct 11)
- Re: Abuse Departments Matthew S. Hallacy (Oct 12)
- Re: Abuse Departments Avleen Vig (Oct 12)
- Re: Abuse Departments Brian Bruns (Oct 12)
- Re: Abuse Departments Bryan Heitman (Oct 12)
- Re: Abuse Departments Andrew D Kirch (Oct 12)
- Re: Abuse Departments Brian Bruns (Oct 12)
- Re: Abuse Departments Avleen Vig (Oct 12)
- Re: Abuse Departments Matthew Sullivan (Oct 12)
- RE: Abuse Departments Bryan Heitman (Oct 12)
- Re: Abuse Departments Matt (Oct 11)
- Re: Abuse Departments Andrew D Kirch (Oct 11)