full-disclosure - FW: Question for DNS pros

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

From: frank at knobbe.us (Frank Knobbe)
Subject: FW: Question for DNS pros

On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 17:52, Frank Knobbe wrote:

> 216.154.239.240 - SBC in Irvine
  --> couldn't confirm that one
> 66.150.165.7 - Logical US-AWS NAP through Internap
  --> seadns01.shopattwireless.com (match)
> 64.170.177.10 - SBC Interactive through PacBell
  --> 64-170-177-10.ptim.com (match)
> 63.240.26.10 - CERFnet
  --> ny-ns.marketwatch.com (match)
> 63.210.252.135 - Level 3
  --> cindns01.shopattwireless.com (match)

(match means it is the exact same traffic, just a low volume, between 3
and 10 packets total).

It appears all these are DNS servers. They also all respond to queries
for "." with the list of root servers. That means that they are
recursive.

Perhaps there is a 0-day exploit for certain DNS servers? Maybe those
DNS servers have a worm that is trying to spread? Maybe seeded from
China? Otherwise, why would AT&T's name server be sending out probes?

The mystery deepens...

Regards,
Frank

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20040803/a877c938/attachment.bin