nanog mailing list archives
Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking?
From: Ca By <cb.list6 () gmail com>
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2016 16:51:38 -0700
On Sunday, September 11, 2016, 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"?
Not ok. Never.
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 <javascript:;> pgp key: B178313E | also on Signal
Current thread:
- "Defensive" BGP hijacking? Hugo Slabbert (Sep 11)
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking? FHR (Sep 11)
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking? Ca By (Sep 11)
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking? Blake Hudson (Sep 12)
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking? Ryan, Spencer (Sep 12)
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking? Mel Beckman (Sep 12)
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking? Florian Weimer (Sep 12)
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking? Jared Mauch (Sep 12)
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking? Ryan, Spencer (Sep 12)
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking? Paras Jha (Sep 12)
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking? Mel Beckman (Sep 12)
- Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking? Hugo Slabbert (Sep 12)