nanog mailing list archives

Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking?


From: jim deleskie <deleskie () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 09:31:12 -0300

Redirecting someone's traffic, with out there permission or a court order,
by a court in your jurisdiction, not a lot different then the "bad guys"
themselves.




On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 5:54 PM, Hugo Slabbert <hugo () slabnet com> wrote:

Hopefully this is operational enough, though obviously leaning more
towards the policy side of things:

What does nanog think about a DDoS scrubber hijacking a network "for
defensive purposes"?

http://krebsonsecurity.com/2016/09/alleged-vdos-proprietors-arrested-in-
israel/

"For about six hours, we were seeing attacks of more than 200 Gbps hitting
us,” Townsend explained. “What we were doing was for defensive purposes. We
were simply trying to get them to stop and to gather as much information as
possible about the botnet they were using and report that to the proper
authorities.”

--
Hugo Slabbert       | email, xmpp/jabber: hugo () slabnet com
pgp key: B178313E   | also on Signal


Current thread: