Re: Phishing and BGP Blackholing

From: Andy Davidson (no email)
Date: Wed Jan 03 2007 - 08:15:12 EST

  • Next message: Jeff Aitken: "Re: Quick BGP peering question"

    On 3 Jan 2007, at 01:02, Joy, Dylan wrote:

    > I'm curious if anyone can answer whether there has been any
    > traction made relative to blocking egress traffic (via BGP) on US
    > backbones which is destined to IP addresses used for fraudulent
    > purposes, such as phishing sites. I'm sure there are several
    > challenges to implementing this...

    I have often thought that this would be a brilliant idea (on paper),
    when working with one of my clients who suffer regular denial of
    service attacks through open http and socks proxies. They are a
    multi-homed end site running bgp4 on their edge networks.

     From a 'problem solving' perspective, a Team Cymru-style bgp peer
    that injected very specific routes into their routing table, and
    matching configuration which caused those particular routes to be
    dropped would be ideal. Additions and deletions would be as close to
    real-time as possible.

     From a political perspective, I could only advocate to clients such
    a service that had a strict policy of adding routes to addresses
    because of a provable policy infringement. For example, a route for
    1.2.3.4/32 would only be announced by my bgp-blacklist peer if it
    could be demonstrated that a device reachable at 1.2.3.4 was an open
    http proxy (or socks proxy, or smtp relay).... and not because a
    phishing site was hosted there. Different priorities for different
    networks I guess ..

    No interest in a service which requires companies running a blocked
    proxy to pay before the route/block is lifted. Also no interest in a
    service which blocks entire networks in the event of a policy
    infringement, only the polluting hosts. I mention this paragraph
    thanks to some of the policies of DNS-based email-abuse blacklists.

    Phishing is content - when a service opens which filters based on
    content, there's a whole new can of worms being opened - what *else*
    is abusive content ? Does it stop being abusive content at some
    point ? If phishing is abusive, is pornography abuse ? A mouthy
    anti-West news agency ?

    Anyone going to talk about this at Toronto ? Trying to justify
    taking a week 'off' to visit ... ;-)

    -- 
    Regards, Andy Davidson
    http://www.devonshire.it/  -  0844 704 704 7  - Sheffield, UK
    

  • Next message: Jeff Aitken: "Re: Quick BGP peering question"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD