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]

Message-ID: <1091571796.525.193.camel@localhost>
From: frank at knobbe.us (Frank Knobbe)
Subject: FW: Question for DNS pros

On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 15:34, Paul Schmehl wrote:
> Frank, I've only checked two of the "attacking" IPs, but they are both 
> BigIP load balancers.  I'd bet that they all are, and these packets are 
> some sort of probe to see if a host that contacted them before is still 
> alive.

hmm... I think it's a bit early to say that. After all, why doesn't it
contact other systems? Why would it have to recheck in the first place?
And why would it use a) a valid DNS query, b) and obscure, non-standard
SYN packet, and c) a DNS query *specifically* including the "pinged"
hosts' IP address in reverse notation? I strongly doubt that the F5
engineers through *that* would be a good way to see if a host is still
alive.

Even if, what would the BigIP gain from it? Nuttin' (as we say here in
TN :)

The mystery continues...

Later,
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/c17b2a2b/attachment.bin