From: Ben Butler (no email)
Date: Sat Feb 02 2008 - 17:40:56 EST
Hi,
"i explained why this is bad -- it lowers the attacker's costs in what
amounts to an economics war. they can get a web site taken down by its
own provider just by attacking it. they need fewer resources for their
attack once they know the provider's going to blackhole the victim."
I thought the cold war nuclear arms race had shown up to be truly MAD.
Who is paying for this ever escalating capacity of infrastructure as a
way to survive large DoS attacks.
Smaller attacks can be absorbed, but I really cant see a strategy of
endlessly upgrading network router and WAN infrastructure to ensure
enough head room ideal capacity is a particularly economically sensible
approach to the problem.
Ben
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Paul Vixie
Sent: 02 February 2008 21:37
To: Ben Butler
Cc:
Subject: Re: Blackholes and IXs and Completing the Attack.
> I was not proposing he Null routing of the attack source in the other
> ISPs network but the destination in my network being Null routed as a
> destination from your network out.
i explained why this is bad -- it lowers the attacker's costs in what
amounts to an economics war. they can get a web site taken down by its
own provider just by attacking it. they need fewer resources for their
attack once they know the provider's going to blackhole the victim.
> This has no danger to the other network as it is my network that is
> going to be my IP space that is blackholed in your network, and the
> space blackholed is going to be an address that is being knocked of
> the air anyway under DoS and we are trying to minimise collateral
damage.
your collateral damage is of precious little interest to someone else's
backbone staff, unless they can route-filter the potential announcements
so that you are unable to also remotely blackhole addresses you don't
advertise. i explained this as an insurance/ISO9000 problem.
> I think you might have thought I was suggesting we blackhole sources
> in other peoples networks - this is definatly not what I was saying.
i explained why this would be a more sensible approach, but STILL
unworkable.
> So, given we all now understand each other - why is no one doing the
above?
now that we've rehashed what we both said, i think we're done here.
|
|
|