full-disclosure - Odd packet?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

From: ssch at wheel.dk (Steffen Schumacher)
Subject: Odd packet?

On 26.05.2004 13:16:52 +0000, Jeff Kell wrote:
> Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu wrote:
> 
> >3) An amazing number of ISPs do *not* do proper ingress/egress filtering.
> 
> Well, when you're cranking gigabits sometimes those little checks can 
> become a bottleneck.
>

Very few customers have gig lines, and those which do, have most likely
paid enough money for it that antispoofing checks is affordable for the
ISP. Please remember that antispoofing is only done at the edge of the ISP
net.. inside it every thing is the way it should be of course..

So I have to disagree - doing antispoofing checks doesn't cost that much
in router performance vs. for instance increased routes in you routing 
table..

> Besides, safe routing begins at home.  If end-users (or endpoints) would 
> do ingress/egress filtering, there wouldn't be a problem.  I'm not so 
> certain we should place the blame on the core backbone for passing the 
> packets it is sent without alteration.
>

Sure end-users are more then welcome to help, but ISP's still have to protect
customers from themselves, and from other evil customers..
But no - the core has no fault, but the ISP edge routers do if they don't
do anitspoofing checks..

/Steffen

> Jeff
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html