News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Internet traffic for Google, Facebook, Apple was briefly ... by iDemonix on Wednesday December 13, 2017 @03:55AM (#15912994)
I work for a medium sized ISP, we have about 500 peers over exchanges like LONAP and Linx. You'd be surprised how many of our peers won't use MD5 passwords or even filter properly.
Re:Internet traffic for Google, Facebook, Apple was briefly ... by pas on Wednesday December 13, 2017 @08:39AM (#15914092)
They propagate a few prefixes toward you, right?

So you have to filter what you accept from them, no?

What mechanisms do you have for this?

If it's a lookup, why it's not feasible for higher Tier ISPs?

Re:Internet traffic for Google, Facebook, Apple was briefly ... by riffic on Wednesday December 13, 2017 @04:01AM (#15913018)
Name and shame?
Re:Internet traffic for Google, Facebook, Apple was briefly ... by maltalex on Wednesday December 13, 2017 @05:21AM (#15913331)
Bad idea. These are customers he's talking about. If you want to stay in business, naming and shaming your customers isn't a good strategy.
Re:Internet traffic for Google, Facebook, Apple was briefly ... by a012 on Wednesday December 13, 2017 @04:43AM (#15913174)
Probably he's still working at there, so he'd be forbidden to disclose customers name.
Re:Internet traffic for Google, Facebook, Apple was briefly ... by dredmorbius on Wednesday December 13, 2017 @09:43AM (#15914481)
BGP peerings are publically published, that's how they work.

Knowing which customers fail to secure their comms is another matter.

Re:Internet traffic for Google, Facebook, Apple was briefly ... by a012 on Thursday December 14, 2017 @01:50AM (#15920415)
> Knowing which customers fail to secure their comms is another matter.

Exactly what I meant.

Re:Internet traffic for Google, Facebook, Apple was briefly ... by iDemonix on Wednesday December 13, 2017 @08:38AM (#15914081)
Sorry, no, I don’t really see how that contributes to the discussion.