North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Historical
Re: Network Operators and smurf
- From: Phil Howard
- Date: Sun Apr 26 17:01:33 1998
Havard.Eidnes@runit.sintef.no writes...
> It would prevent simple spoofing, yes, but that would not
> eliminate the Smurf attacks since to mount a Smurf attack you
> need to use the victim's address as your source address, and that
> one *is* typically "valid" according to the criteria you mention
> above (?).
But the first router the spoofer hits would NOT likely point the spoofed
address back to the spoofer. At that router this would stop the spoof.
This is why the feature needs to be shipped on all routers and enabled
by default.
--
Phil Howard | no1way99@no5place.edu ads3suck@no8where.edu stop5it0@dumbads2.edu
phil | blow0me8@dumb6ads.org ads4suck@noplace3.org stop3ads@noplace0.net
at | die1spam@lame8ads.com end4it12@anyplace.net stop9597@spammer8.net
milepost | stop5ads@no0place.org end7it69@anyplace.edu a8b3c9d6@dumbads2.com
dot | die4spam@lame1ads.net stop6it2@no6where.com suck3it1@spam2mer.org
com | stop9915@spam6mer.net stop1it8@nowhere2.org stop0ads@anywhere.net
|
