Re:Dyn Statement on 10/21/2016 DDoS Attack
by ssharp on Saturday October 22, 2016 @07:08PM
(#12770996)
If they are residential or business IPs, it would be nice for the ISPs to let them know something on their local network is part of a massive botnet.
Re:Dyn Statement on 10/21/2016 DDoS Attack
by lilott8 on Saturday October 22, 2016 @11:03PM
(#12771661)
why would they? I mean with how they are charging by the GB these days, it gives them financial incentive to not tell you your refrigerator (or any device) is part of a botnet, that's free money for them.
Re:Dyn Statement on 10/21/2016 DDoS Attack
by totalZero on Sunday October 23, 2016 @02:32AM
(#12772305)
Assuming you mean this seriously and not just as a tongue-in-cheek dig at internet carriers...
Even if every refrigerator were on a pay-as-you-go plan, handling all of the data may ruin throughput for other customers, especially at peak usage.
Re:Dyn Statement on 10/21/2016 DDoS Attack
by mirimir on Saturday October 22, 2016 @07:10PM
(#12771005)
That makes sense to me.
Re:Dyn Statement on 10/21/2016 DDoS Attack
by feld on Saturday October 22, 2016 @10:11PM
(#12771519)
Yes, because an ISP has nothing better to do than waste money on contacting customers and telling them to unplug their refrigerators.
Not going to happen.
At some point, if the Internet is going to continue to function, one of the likely outcomes is that these customers wake up some morning and the only thing they can get is a web page telling them they have a choice of disabling their fridge's Internet of Shit device or connection, or doing without their full connection to the greater Internet.
Compare to, for example, our stopping our use of lead in paint and gasoline/petrol.
Re:Dyn Statement on 10/21/2016 DDoS Attack
by mirimir on Sunday October 23, 2016 @09:01PM
(#12776200)
That's a good analogy. In many places, owners of lead-contaminated buildings must remediate. One issue, of course, is poisoning of resident children. But another is contamination of the surrounding environment. Paint manufacturers are also liable, but that's a separate issue.
Basically, this is just environmental pollution.
Re:Dyn Statement on 10/21/2016 DDoS Attack
by mirimir on Saturday October 22, 2016 @10:25PM
(#12771561)
Well, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Alert_System is happening.
Re:Dyn Statement on 10/21/2016 DDoS Attack
by kpcyrd on Saturday October 22, 2016 @08:27PM
(#12771246)
In this case the IPs probably aren't spoofed, but there's always the chance that you're blaming IPs that didn't engage in the attack but somebody just put it randomly as source address in their packets.
Re:Dyn Statement on 10/21/2016 DDoS Attack
by mirimir on Saturday October 22, 2016 @09:24PM
(#12771385)
True. But once you have the IP, you can nmap to get the OS, right? That would probably exclude most false positives, where Mirai was implicated.
Re:Dyn Statement on 10/21/2016 DDoS Attack
by Zancarius on Saturday October 22, 2016 @10:23PM
(#12771551)
Probably not in cases where the device is behind a NAT/router that happens to forward remote access ports that lead to the initial compromise. Then you'd be nmapping the customer's endpoint. Plus, it'd be too time consuming. Tens of millions of participating IPs spread across countless ISPs...
Re:Dyn Statement on 10/21/2016 DDoS Attack
by mirimir on Saturday October 22, 2016 @10:55PM
(#12771640)
Good point. But still, even with risk of false positives, I believe that ISPs should be informed. And ISPs could acknowledge uncertainty when informing customers.
Re:Dyn Statement on 10/21/2016 DDoS Attack
by NetStrikeForce on Sunday October 23, 2016 @06:11AM
(#12772841)
But in many cases you don't even know if the IP addresses are spoofed or not.
Re:Dyn Statement on 10/21/2016 DDoS Attack
by ryanlol on Saturday October 22, 2016 @07:02PM
(#12770966)
> And maybe they could publicly shame ISPs that didn't act on the information.
so... all of them?
Why do you think Dyn should waste their time and money on this?
Re:Dyn Statement on 10/21/2016 DDoS Attack
by mirimir on Saturday October 22, 2016 @07:19PM
(#12771045)
ISPs are dunning users about "illegal" file sharing. Because of pressure from MPAA etc. These IoT botnets are just testing capabilities, and they're already formidable. Going after operators is good, but it's so damn easy to hide. It seems that IoT botnets are using mainly direct attacks, so they're easy to identify. And why would ISPs want to support botnets? Don't ISP ToS typically say that attacks, threats and spam are grounds for service termination?
Maybe this isn't Dyn's job. Maybe some neutral NGO should handle it. But seriously, this is something I could do at home, on an old gaming box in MySQL. If I had the list of IP addresses, anyway. But why? How about acting in the public interest? Or good PR?
OK, so why don't Dyn staff identify owners of all IP subnets represented, and provide each with a list of participating IP addresses? That's a trivial exercise, right? And maybe they could publicly shame ISPs that didn't act on the information.