Security Incidents mailing list archives
Re: A port scan is not an Incident
From: David Brumley <dbrumley () RTFM STANFORD EDU>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 13:00:40 -0700
So filter, don't complain. Or do both and expect few results for the complaining.
One thing I forgot to mention: for sites using router ACL's, blocking should be the last alternative. Why? If you implement the filter as a router ACL, remember that the list is transversed in O(n) time, not O(log n) time that you would expect (at least for cisco). Also, on older routers when a match is made on an ACL, the packet is copied to a separate buffer instead of routed to the bit bucket. Can you say 99% cpu usage? This is why extensive ACL's on a router will kill it just like a DOS attack. Last I checked CISCO was making headway on solving the transversal time limit nuisance. The routing to the bit bucket has already been fixed, but you may need to upgrade (check with your friendly cisco rep). I don't know the specifics for other router vendors. cheers, david #+--+#+--+#+--+#+--+#+--+#+--+#+--+#+--+#+--+#+--+#+--+#+--+#+--+#+--+# David Brumley - Stanford Computer Security - dbrumley at Stanford.EDU Phone: +1-650-723-2445 WWW: http://www.stanford.edu/~dbrumley Fax: +1-650-725-9121 PGP: finger dbrumley-pgp at sunset.Stanford.EDU #+--+#+--+#+--+#+--+#+--+#+--+#+--+#+--+#+--+#+--+#+--+#+--+#+--+#+--+# Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
Current thread:
- Re: A port scan is not an Incident David Brumley (Sep 24)
