News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Possible BGP hijack of 1.1.1.1 by charonn0 on Tuesday May 29, 2018 @01:00PM (#17180958)
To be fair 1.1.1.1 had been unassigned/non-routable up until April.
Re:Possible BGP hijack of 1.1.1.1 by RKearney on Tuesday May 29, 2018 @01:43PM (#17181342)
To be fair, unallocated or unassigned IP space isn't fair game to use for testing outside of an air gapped lab. I've never in my career thought it would be a good idea to "test" unallocated public unicast address space on my edge routers.
Re:Possible BGP hijack of 1.1.1.1 by Fnoord on Tuesday May 29, 2018 @02:16PM (#17181667)

  On an airgapped lab it is bad practice. Same -though DNS related- with using *.local as a LAN TLD
We just should not.
Re:Possible BGP hijack of 1.1.1.1 by RKearney on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @12:20PM (#17189003)
There are instances where completely replicating an environment in an air gapped lab is acceptable. For instance, you could be encountering some edge case where a bit is being flipped in an IP address, or a bit is stuck on somewhere and replicating the environment down to the individual IP addresses plays a huge part in reproducing the issue.

An edge router is not one of these cases though.

Re:Possible BGP hijack of 1.1.1.1 by a1xndr on Tuesday May 29, 2018 @05:01PM (#17182883)
.local is perfectly fine according to the IETF https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6762
Re:Possible BGP hijack of 1.1.1.1 by slrz on Tuesday May 29, 2018 @07:17PM (#17183595)
For mDNS, yes. There are resolvers that don't even try DNS when looking up a name in .local.

Some of them were made more lenient because just as Microsoft finally stopped encouraging this nonsense, the Kubernetes people picked it up from ancient Windows Server folklore and apparently decided to make it web-scale.

Re:Possible BGP hijack of 1.1.1.1 by Fnoord on Tuesday May 29, 2018 @05:09PM (#17182928)
As you linked, it is reserved for mDNS.
Re:Possible BGP hijack of 1.1.1.1 by MattSteelblade on Tuesday May 29, 2018 @01:33PM (#17181243)
It was assigned to APNIC in 2010 http://seclists.org/nanog/2010/Jan/776
Re:Possible BGP hijack of 1.1.1.1 by charonn0 on Tuesday May 29, 2018 @01:46PM (#17181366)
Allocated, not assigned.
Re:Possible BGP hijack of 1.1.1.1 by MattSteelblade on Tuesday May 29, 2018 @02:41PM (#17181869)
APNIC used that terminology in their analysis paper of 1.0.0.0/8, "1.0.0.0/8 has been assigned by IANA to APNIC on the 19th January 2010" [1]. To do this analysis, wouldn't they have had to advertise a route back in 2010?

[1] http://www.potaroo.net/studies/1slash8/1slash8.html

Re:Possible BGP hijack of 1.1.1.1 by Joeri on Tuesday May 29, 2018 @01:56PM (#17181467)
What is the practical difference?
Re:Possible BGP hijack of 1.1.1.1 by MattSteelblade on Tuesday May 29, 2018 @02:43PM (#17181886)
From RIPE, "An allocation is the block of IP addresses that is reserved by the RIPE NCC for your use now and in the future. An assignment is a block of IP addresses from your allocation that is used on an active network."

https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-management...

Re:Possible BGP hijack of 1.1.1.1 by brutal_chaos on Tuesday May 29, 2018 @02:04PM (#17181550)
Re:Possible BGP hijack of 1.1.1.1 by seanp2k2 on Tuesday May 29, 2018 @02:03PM (#17181546)
It didn’t do the bad thing until after it was assigned, so no one cared when it was allocated.