[CentOS] Re: Defending againts simultanious attacks
Paul
unix at bikesn4x4s.comThu Feb 15 18:39:08 UTC 2007
- Previous message: [CentOS] Re: Defending againts simultanious attacks
- Next message: [CentOS] Re: Defending againts simultanious attacks
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Thu, February 15, 2007 1:15 pm, Scott Silva wrote: > Drew Weaver spake the following on 2/15/2007 8:27 AM: >> I find it kind of odd that noone has come up with a 'RBL' for bots... >> >> ISPs could easily receive routes via BGP from "some trusted source" that >> has NULL routes for all of the 'infected' hosts which are attacking >> people.. >> >> A few dozen honeypots and you would quickly have a large list of >> infected hosts in which to ignore entirely. > ISP's are in the market to sell bandwidth. And bots use bandwidth. > Even if an ISP would just police it's own address space it would help. > At home I have roadrunner, and they have no problem blocking "incoming" > port > 25 and port 80 traffic, but have no problem letting a connection blast > away at > everybody outgoing. > So I can't have a simple webserver, but I can have a spamming operation. > Go > figure! Speakesy.net polices their network properly and allows servers in the TOS. One of the few left. And they do police their network for open relays. They rule!
- Previous message: [CentOS] Re: Defending againts simultanious attacks
- Next message: [CentOS] Re: Defending againts simultanious attacks
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the CentOS mailing list