Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed.

[John Bambenek <bambenek () gmail com>]

Someone else posted on twitter, I saw it recently.

To make it even clearer, we'll take your data, sure.  Just don't expect 
us to jump on it until we verify with something solid.

chris rollin wrote:
> Uh.
>
>   You posted on Twitter.
>
>   The most trusted name in [?]
>
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 12:17 AM, John Bambenek <bambenek () gmail com 
> <mailto:bambenek () gmail com>> wrote:
>
>     We'll take data from **Trusted** sources.
>
>     I'm just not going to take a public open mailing list post as
>     evidence at this point.
>
>
>     chris rollin wrote:
>
>         Shon wrote:
>
>         Seth,
>
>          
>
>             I said it could be, not that it is. Thanks for pointing
>             that out. However,
>                
>
>         I
>          
>
>             believe the reason they are being blocked at AT&T is the
>             main reason I
>                
>
>         supplied
>          
>
>             on my first post. The DDoS attack issue is the main ticket
>             here.
>                
>
>
>         The ACK storms arent coming from the 4chan servers
>         It's just like the DNS attack (IN/NS/.).  It points to the
>         stupidity of AT&T
>         uppers
>         SANS: Are you or arent you soliciting data?  I have some to
>         confirm also
>
>          
>
>             It's not
>             because of content, or to piss people off. It's to protect
>             their network,
>                
>
>         as any
>          
>
>             of you would do when you got DDoSed on your own networks.
>                
>
>
>         They are going to get some first hand experience in what
>         Protecting their
>         Network
>         involves real soon, now.  Blocking 4chan was an exercise in
>         Stupidity
>
>          
>
>             It's damage control,
>                
>
>
>         It's a damage challenge.
>
>          
>
>             essentially, until they find out who is involved and block
>             them, then
>                
>
>         they'll
>          
>
>             likely lift the block.
>                
>
>
>         They don't have the right to do this.  Not in their
>         TOS/EULA/User-Agreement.
>          Not in any sane legal forum.  (I*A*AL)
>
>          
>
>             This ISN'T the first time this has happened.
>                
>
>
>         Exactly.
>
>         Now you see the problem ?
>