RE: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons

From: Barry Greene (bgreene) ("Barry)
Date: Sun Mar 04 2007 - 10:46:02 EST

  • Next message: Barry Greene (bgreene): "RE: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons"

     

    > http://www.completewhois.com/hijacked/files/203.27.251.0.txt
    >
    > http://www.completewhois.com/hijacked/index.htm
    >
    >
    > This can proof the opposite.
    >
    > Malware comes from redirected allocated blocks, not from bogons.

    I don't think this is proof. The haphazard way that BCP38 and ingress
    prefix filtering of Bogon/DUSA make 'spoofing' from these Bogon/DUSA
    blocks unprofitable to a miscreant and forces them to work too hard.

    What this data does demonstrate is that hijacking of valid prefixes has
    not been mitigated. And, there is most likely an economic motivation to
    use the hijacked prefixes. In other words, the miscreants can use the
    technique over and over - not get caught - not work too hard - and make
    money (the first three and most important principles of miscreants).

    This data points to another problem - where SPs are not putting ingress
    prefix filters on their BGP speaking customers. That is another area
    where you have a lot of operational entropy issues. OPEX is increased on
    the building of the prefix provision tool, the maintenance of the
    policy, synchronization of that policy with the peer ingress filters,
    and customers calls required when ever the customer gets prefix updates.
    Hence many (most) operators rather not do the prefix filters on their
    customers (usually 2 to 4 lines of policy on a J & C router). For many,
    the OPEX is just too high.


  • Next message: Barry Greene (bgreene): "RE: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD