site Search:


 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery






how-to block ads


 
Search Topic:
Uniqs:
950
Share Topic
Post a:
Post a:
page: 1 · 2
AuthorAll Replies


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

Great!

So now it is possible for some turd world country to singlehandedly take down a major website. Why haven't we seen more of this sort of thing happening to other websites?
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate!

quatrix
Premium
join:2005-02-11
South FL
kudos:2

Go ahead and take down a bunch of "websites", no problem. Now if we're talking about "web sites", that's another story.


waynemr

join:2002-01-28
Madison, WI

reply to pnh102
You know, I was thinking the exact thing. If it is that easy, what sort of a house of cards have we built?

I'm curious if everything had been in IP6, if it would have been a problem? Doesn't IP6 include some authentication mechanisms that are absent in IP4?



pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

said by waynemr:

I'm curious if everything had been in IP6, if it would have been a problem? Doesn't IP6 include some authentication mechanisms that are absent in IP4?
From what I can conclude... IPv6 is the gallium arsenide of the network world... like the "semiconductor of the future... always has been, and always will be."

As for authentication... I would hope that there is a better way to secure IP address blocks... or else we are in for a lot worse trouble.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate!


Linklist
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5

reply to quatrix

said by quatrix:

Go ahead and take down a bunch of "websites", no problem. Now if we're talking about "web sites", that's another story.
website is a legitimate spelling as an alternate to "web site".
»www.thefreedictionary.com/website
»dictionary.reference.com/browse/website
»www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/website
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page

flyingjoey

join:2005-11-07
Jersey City, NJ

reply to pnh102
I've said it from day one... We're teaching our enemies our technology and they will use it against us.

Wait for those people in the offshore call centers to start becoming disgruntle, we’re all going to have to get new S.S. numbers, they’re going to F__K up our mortages, credit rating, banking information. Just wait and see.

Conspiracy theory 101



pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

said by flyingjoey:

Wait for those people in the offshore call centers to start becoming disgruntle, we’re all going to have to get new S.S. numbers, they’re going to F__K up our mortages, credit rating, banking information. Just wait and see.
That has already been happening.

But I blame the banks and other companies that have been allowed to offshore our personal information with such wanton disregard for security.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate!

rahvin112

join:2002-05-24
Sandy, UT

reply to pnh102
For all you paranoid that some country is going to do this to shutdown sites they disagree with, consider for a moment that it won't take very many phone calls to you ISP before they and the backbone operators blacklist the entire netblock for the country in question.

So if they want to shut down some site they can accomplish it for a short period, but afterwards the entire country or ISP responsible will be suddenly without routeable internet addresses and all the citizens could access would be in the country that tried this tactic. Given the seriousness of poisoning the IP stack it wouldn't be long before ARIN acted to permanently revoke the IP addresses of the offending computers and it would likely be a long time before said country could route to much of the rest of the world as each ISP would have to take down their blacklisting.



crippy
Premium
join:2005-05-17
some place

reply to flyingjoey
so true.. i can see it coming



ShadPTR

join:2008-01-23
Markham, ON

reply to flyingjoey

said by flyingjoey:

I've said it from day one... We're teaching our enemies our technology and they will use it against us.

Wait for those people in the offshore call centers to start becoming disgruntle, we’re all going to have to get new S.S. numbers, they’re going to F__K up our mortages, credit rating, banking information. Just wait and see.

Conspiracy theory 101
Lol...and you don't think your gov't does this to you already?

ReneM

join:2003-07-18
Cockeysville, MD

reply to flyingjoey
Our technology???
Luckily it's the www and not the usn (united states network). And going with that please thank German technology for the Saturn V and German/British/Swiss/Jewish/Polish technology for the nukes. While were at it, send a letter to Italian Leonardo for most of the basic science/technology principles used by the US.



factchecker

@cox.net

reply to pnh102

said by pnh102:

So now it is possible for some turd world country to singlehandedly take down a major website. Why haven't we seen more of this sort of thing happening to other websites?
It has ALWAYS been possible via BGP route announcements. The only reason this problem happened with an upstream provider failed to filter BGP announcements correctly. The finger pointing needs to be at PCCW, not the Pakistani Telecom guys.


Jim Kirk
Premium
join:2005-12-09

reply to ReneM
The Internet was created by the US government (ARPANET), so technically it is "our" technology. It was opened up and other countries were allowed to join.



work

@charter.com

well... there was also a simultaneous project working on the same thign in switzerland, memory serving.
makes ya kinda wonder, really, if there were other projects working on the same idea, but becuse of hte US project they sorta scrapped it when DARPAnet went public?



Linklist
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5

reply to pnh102

News item on HOW this may be prevented in the future

»www.news.com/8301-10784_3-987865···1_3-0-20
The security weakness lies in why those false instructions, which took YouTube offline for two hours on Sunday, were believed by routers around the globe. That's because Hong Kong-based PCCW, which provides the Internet link to Pakistan Telecom, did not stop the misleading broadcast--which is what most large providers in the United States and Europe do.

So why hasn't anyone done something about it? False broadcasts can amount to a denial-of-service attack and, if done with malicious intent, can send unsuspecting users to a fake bank, merchant, or credit card site.

To understand why this is both a serious Internet vulnerability and also difficult to fix requires delving into the technical details a little.

Kim Davies, ICANN's manager of route zone services, says ICANN isn't able to revoke the AS number of a misbehaving network provider. "It's best to think of them as similar to post codes or ZIP codes," Davies said. "We maintain a registry of them to ensure that they aren't conflicting."

If the address information provided by AS is reliable, all is well. But if an AS makes a false broadcast, because of a configuration mistake or for malicious reasons, all hell can break loose.

How could this have been prevented? First, Pakistan Telecom shouldn't have broadcast to the entire world that it was hosting YouTube's IP addresses. Second, Hong Kong-based PCCW could have recognized the broadcast as false and filtered it out.

An employee of PCCW, who wished to remain anonymous because he is not authorized to speak for the company, said that as soon as the false broadcast occurred, PCCW started receiving a flurry of phone calls from global ISPs wondering what had gone wrong. A YouTube representative also called.

One way to handle this is for network providers to be automatically notified when the virtual location of an Internet address changes, which is what some researchers have suggested in the form of a "hijack alert system." Another is to treat broadcasts with changes of addresses as suspicious for 24 hours and then accept them as normal. Simple filtering of broadcasts may not always work because some networks provide connectivity to customers with thousands of different routes.

Probably the most extensive countermeasure would be a technology like Secure BGP, which uses encryption to verify which network providers own Internet addresses and are authorized to broadcast changes. But Secure BGP has been around in one form or another form since 1998, and is still not a widely-used standard, mostly because it adds complexity and routers that understand will add additional cost.

At least that's been the conventional view. A high-profile incident like YouTube being knocked offline may accelerate this process, said Steven Bellovin of Columbia University. "I know there are serious deployment and operational issues," Bellovin said. "The question is this: When is the pain from routing incidents great enough that we're forced to act? It would have been nice to have done something before this, since now all the world's script kiddies have seen what can be done."
So there is a probable fix, but it involves upgrading routers around the world. What do you think the chances are it will be implemented until some criminal org knocks a few countries off the air for days at a time?
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

said by Linklist:

What do you think the chances are it will be implemented until some criminal org knocks a few countries off the air for days at a time?
Approximately 0.00%.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate!


nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA

reply to Linklist

said by Linklist:

So there is a probable fix, but it involves upgrading routers around the world. What do you think the chances are it will be implemented until some criminal org knocks a few countries off the air for days at a time?
The quoted article isn't terribly surprising. When I worked for a backbone provider, our biggest problems came mostly from Chinese (and other Asian) networks. Not so much due to just to malicious intent but because of the fact that their infrastructure firmware and software was anywhere from two to five years out of date. There's a *LOT* of unpatched code on the APNIC networks that allow this kind of crap to happen. If they actually ran up to date, patched code, a lot of these things simply couldn't happen.
--
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell

patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1

reply to pnh102

Re: Great!

said by pnh102:

As for authentication... I would hope that there is a better way to secure IP address blocks... or else we are in for a lot worse trouble.
BGP (the internet's routing protocol) is as unsecure as SMTP email. Its amazing we don't have more problems. Both need to die. If this was the 1970s, this would be a case of someone with a blue box seriously screwing up a telco switch. There is a reason SS7 is out of band today, why is BGP still in band?

flyingjoey

join:2005-11-07
Jersey City, NJ

reply to ShadPTR
stop bitchin'... Canada is ours too... that's our backyard

Just kidding... I tell this to my canadian cousins just to bother them


Saturday, 18-May 04:21:02 Terms of Use & Privacy | feedback | contact | Hosting by nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo
over 13.5 years online © 1999-2013 dslreports.com.
Most commented news this week
Hot Topics