nanog mailing list archives
Re: Are botnets relevant to NANOG?
From: John Kristoff <jtk () ultradns net>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 12:47:06 -0500
On Fri, 26 May 2006 10:21:10 -0700 Rick Wesson <wessorh () ar com> wrote:
lets see, should we be concerned? here are a few interesting tables, the cnt column is new IP addresses we have seen in the last 5 days.
Hi Rick, What I'd be curious to know in the numbers being thrown around if there has been any accounting of transient address usage. Since I'm spending an awful lot of time with DNS these days, I'll actually provide a cite related to that (and not simply suggest you just quote me :-). See sections 3.3.2 and 4.4 of the following: Availability, Usage and Deployment Characteristics of the Domain Name System, Internet Measurement Conference 2004, J. Pang, et. al At some point transient address pools are limited and presumably so are the possible numbers of new bots, particularly within netblocks. Is there any accounting for that? Shouldn't there be? What will the effect of doing that be on the numbers? John
Current thread:
- Are botnets relevant to NANOG? Michael . Dillon (May 26)
- Re: Are botnets relevant to NANOG? Peter Dambier (May 26)
- Re: Are botnets relevant to NANOG? Rick Wesson (May 26)
- Re: Are botnets relevant to NANOG? John Kristoff (May 26)
- Re: Are botnets relevant to NANOG? Rick Wesson (May 26)
- Re: Are botnets relevant to NANOG? John Kristoff (May 26)
- Re: Are botnets relevant to NANOG? Peter Dambier (May 26)
- Re: Are botnets relevant to NANOG? Gadi Evron (May 26)
- Re: Are botnets relevant to NANOG? Rick Wesson (May 26)
- Re: Are botnets relevant to NANOG? Sean Donelan (May 26)
- Re: Are botnets relevant to NANOG? Peter Dambier (May 26)
- Re: Are botnets relevant to NANOG? Gadi Evron (May 26)
- Re: Are botnets relevant to NANOG? Sean Donelan (May 30)
- Re: Are botnets relevant to NANOG? Peter Dambier (May 26)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Are botnets relevant to NANOG? Fergie (May 26)
- Re: Are botnets relevant to NANOG? Fergie (May 26)