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

[Joel Esler <eslerj () gmail com>]

I posted it on Twitter.  And I was talking with John at the time.   
We're observing the information that is coming in,   but it's hard to  
verify something like that when:

A) We haven't heard from our contacts at AT&T.
B)  The only information we are seeing "confirming" it is on open  
mailing lists, and no offense, but given 4chan's proclivity in  
spreading disinformation extremely well....
C)  I don't know if we want to take the word of moot directly from the  
4chan website either.

I've read in a couple places that the connectivity is coming back up,  
I have a hard time believing that AT&T would do this, and even if they  
did, they did it for a legit reason (maybe a DDOS?)

J

On Jul 27, 2009, at 1:19 AM, John Bambenek wrote:

> 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 ?


--
Joel Esler
  http://www.joelesler.net
  http://www.twitter.com/joelesler
[m]