mailing list archives
Re: UDP port 80 DDoS attack
From: Steve Bertrand <steve.bertrand () gmail com>
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2012 22:40:19 -0500
On 2012.02.05 22:30, Keegan Holley wrote:
> 2012/2/5 Steve Bertrand <steve.bertrand () gmail com
On 2012.02.05 20 <tel:2012.02.05%2020>:37, Keegan Holley wrote:
Source RTBH often falls victim to rapidly changing or spoofed
It also isn't as widely supported as it should be. I never said
hopeless, there just aren't a wealth of defenses against it.
This is so very easily automated. Even if you don't actually want to
trigger the routes automatically, finding the sources you want to
blackhole is as simple as a monitor port, tcpdump and some basic Perl.
This is still vulnerable to spoofing which could cause you to filter
legitimate traffic and make the problem worse. Not saying that S/RTBH
is a bad idea. RTBH is effective and a great idea just not very elegant.
Agreed. Diligence does play a role. However, the times I have
implemented and used (s/)RTBH, I thought it was most elegant. I love its
simplicity and effectiveness.
...and as far as this not having been deployed in many ISPs (per
your next message)... their mitigation strategies should be asked up
front, and if they don't have any (or don't know what you speak of),
find a new ISP.
You sometimes have to weigh the pro's and cons. You can't always pick
the guys with the coolest knobs.
Agreed. But to me, DDOS mitigation is not just a cool knob. If my ISP
can help mitigate a 1Gb onslaught so my 100Mb pipe isn't overwhelmed,
that's more functional than cool. Ranks right up there with IPv6 ;)
Re: UDP port 80 DDoS attack Matthew Palmer (Feb 06)
Re: UDP port 80 DDoS attack John Kristoff (Feb 10)