Slashdot Mirror


Internet Providers Band Together to Fight Evil

toadlife writes "A group of prominent Internet providers are teaming up with a security vendor Arbor Networks to form the Fingerprint Sharing Alliance. Through the use of Arbor Networks Peakflow SP internet appliance (which is an OpenBSD box with some secret sauce mixed in), members of the alliance can share internet threat information with each other in real time. It sounds a bit like Razor, doesn't it?"

116 comments

  1. "It sounds a bit like Razor, doesn't it?" by Moskie · · Score: 5, Funny

    How about: "It sounds a bit like SkyNet, doesn't it?"

    1. Re:"It sounds a bit like Razor, doesn't it?" by mboverload · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But SkyNet was evil, remember?

      Since it is run by humans it must be totally innocent and for the benifeit of the human race in general, right?

    2. Re:"It sounds a bit like Razor, doesn't it?" by daikokatana · · Score: 1

      SkyNet is still evil - it's a national ISP here in these parts.

      --
      http://jcsnippets.atspace.com/ - a collection of Java & C# snippets
    3. Re:"It sounds a bit like Razor, doesn't it?" by XnR'rn · · Score: 0

      No, it sounds more like Marvel/DC comics. They are Internet providers by day, and they fight crime by night!

  2. Fighting evil!? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

    Yeah, great, because we all know that AOL, MSN and Google are pure in heart epitomies of goodness.

    1. Re:Fighting evil!? by Lshmael · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Last I looked, Google was not an Internet provider. Even more damning to your case, none of the three companies you mentioned seem to be included in the alliance.

    2. Re:Fighting evil!? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Google aren't an internet provider? Why do I keep seeing ads from them telling me to sign up to broadband then?

    3. Re:Fighting evil!? by binaryspiral · · Score: 1

      Google aren't an internet provider? Why do I keep seeing ads from them telling me to sign up to broadband then?

      It's the drug induced hallucinations. Google isn't an Internet provider.Rumors abound when Google was looking for people experienced in fiber - but they want start mapping and reselling dark fiber. It is just sitting there.

  3. "Evil"? by Markus+Persson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    DDOS attacks? BitTorrent traffic? Spam email? Slashdotting? Seems a bit too vague to be good.

    --
    If the cat can't experience its own death, nothing will ever kill you. (No, really!)
    1. Re:"Evil"? by KiloByte · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Uh oh.
      If I read this correctly, if you take part in a DDOS attack also known as "Slashdotting", it takes just a single trigger-happy sysadmin somewhere on the way to knock you and the rest of us from the participating networks.

      The article is pretty vague, and if I read correctly, there _is_ a human factor involved. Of course, humans are better from machines from telling apart a bone-fide Slashdotting (beh, a "bona-fide" DDOS attack :p ) from something that's meant just to destroy.

      However, our bona-fide attack just took their server down. We're entering a gray area here: is it still a legitimate flash crowd? It's often hard to tell. The problem is, until today, the one who used to lose was the affected server. If enough backbone ISPs will join this alliance, it will be us getting hurt by the collateral damage.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    2. Re:"Evil"? by hal9000(jr) · · Score: 5, Informative

      If I read this correctly, if you take part in a DDOS attack also known as "Slashdotting",

      No, a denial of service against a web server such as a syn flood or a resource attack doesn't look like /.ing. When a /. event occurs, the clients actually try to complete the TCP connections and HTTP transactions. The flow of data is two way. Think about what HTTP looks like from a packet perspective. From client to server, the initiation of the HTTP session, small packets to the server signifying GETs and POSTs or TCP ACK, and more data from server to client returning pages, images, etc. It's a pretty well known behavior.

      In a denial of service like a syn flood, there are a bunch of incomplete TCP handshakes, often from the reserved address space. In a resource starvation attack, the TCP may complete, but the client doesn't actually send any traffic to the host, in the case of an HTTP transation, would be a GET or a POST--so you get a TCP set-up and then nothing else.

      In a /. event, what Peakflow will is a a spike in traffic but it will also see that clients are attempting transactions and they are coming from valid addresses (non reserved). That looks different.

      See?

    3. Re:"Evil"? by Woy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How long until "evil" means usage of p2p protocols? Legal, illegal, that'll be too much work to figure out. Any central point from which everyone's connectivity depends is a potential point of failure, and it will be compromised, either technically or legally and turned against, well, us. If we come to depend on it, it will be a matter of when, not if.

      --
      "If God created us in his own image we have more than reciprocated." - Voltaire
    4. Re:"Evil"? by KiloByte · · Score: 0

      I can make a DDOS attack will full TCP handshakes, too.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    5. Re:"Evil"? by hal9000(jr) · · Score: 1

      Yes, but if you read the whole post, you would have seen that I addressed that. But to be really clear, the product only provides an indication of something abnormal happening. It takes an admin to determine of the event is malicous or not. I am going to assume that flash traffic is not generally malicious.

    6. Re:"Evil"? by mr.+methane · · Score: 1

      Having multiple providers aggregating traffic info in real time would also allow for *much* better use of predictive caching, so an obscure but interesting site wouldn't be killed (or the owner bankrupted by the bandwidth bill!) when a link to their work gets posted.

    7. Re:"Evil"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't a DDOS attack be a flood of HTTP requests too?

    8. Re:"Evil"? by netruner · · Score: 1

      You sound much more knowledgable than I on this subject, so I'll ask you this question: If it can be discerned by a server, then it should be dicernable further up the chain as well. Why haven't backbone providers implemented countermeasures?

      Could you set up a network where only 2 incomplete TCP handshakes per minute are allowed, all other packets from that IP ignored for the remainder of the minute? Same basic idea with a starvation attack - if you don't receive traffic within a given timeframe, that IP is blocked for, say 10 seconds.

      --



      DISCLAIMER: This post was not checked for speling and grammar- if you complain- you're a whiner
    9. Re:"Evil"? by Tribbin · · Score: 1

      They will resque people from collapsing bridges, stop vulcano eruptions and help getting kittens out of trees even though they might get scratched.

      --
      If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
  4. Interesting Idea by xtracto · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From TFA: Arbor Networks added the Fingerprint sharing capability to Peakflow SP to allow companies to share attack fingerprints automatically without revealing any competitive information.

    The notion of "Fingerprints" is interesting, I wonder if this will really stop the spammers and other cyber-criminals.

    As for the revealing competitive information I dont care revealing anything these bastards could have, you know, they keep pissing people so, why have any consideration ??

    --
    Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    1. Re:Interesting Idea by xtracto · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      whoops...
      </i>

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    2. Re:Interesting Idea by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As for the revealing competitive information I dont care revealing anything these bastards could have, you know, they keep pissing people so, why have any consideration ??

      Keeping the information non-specific protects ISPs sharing fingerprints from any privacy concerns or laws and also from giving out too much information about their own network to possible competitors. Think traffic jump X on ports Y and Z, through border router Q, with additional criteria A, B, C. It describes a type of traffic and calls it DDoS or Nimda Worm.

      When another service provider connected to border router Q sees the same type of traffic they know what it is already and have a bigger picture of the event.

  5. Well... by wlan0 · · Score: 1

    I've always thought that seeing the world after the nuclear apocalypse done by Skynet would be cool. Post-nuclear winter. Here I come!

    1. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trouble is, well, you won't actually see it you know. But I guess that's just too bad isn't it ?

    2. Re:Well... by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      I thonk that they should start and end the entire nuclear war near the end of winter. Then we get post-nuclear spring, which is much more enjoyable.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  6. hmm by Sv-Manowar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This all seems to vague to work, a box that could be exploitable reporting "evil" acts to others, there's something missing here

    I can't see this working unless they make it more secure, and define what "evil" is

    1. Re:hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      I can't see this working unless they make it more secure, and define what "evil" is

      IP packet with Evil Bit set?

    2. Re:hmm by wlan0 · · Score: 1

      Ahh.
      They'll be fighting the enemies of democracy.

    3. Re:hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      But does the traffic ABOUT evil traffic have the evil bit set, since its contents are evil?

    4. Re:hmm by Tribbin · · Score: 1

      Just filter packages with the evil-bit set.

      http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3514.html

      --
      If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
  7. Fight evil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Will they all be wearing spandex bodysuits and flowing capes to work?

    1. Re:Fight evil? by jumbledInTheHead · · Score: 0

      It depends if they have the power of invisibility or not.

    2. Re:Fight evil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NO CAPES!!!!!

      Don't you remember Stratogirl or Syndrome?
      Cape caught in jet engine.

  8. MSIE Deletion squad by FidelCatsro · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ok when i first read this , i had images of a bunch of guys in orange suits bursting into peoples houses and Instaling firefox and anti spyware software on windows machines, then just before diving out the window shouting "All in a days work Ma'am"

    After reading the story though , i must say "About fragleing time " .
    As the submitter mention razor ,which has been around for a good while i have been amazed how many ISPs are actualy doing very little about it , I have my theorys why some do so little (pay per bandwidth is becoming rather popular these days) though most are not like this.
    The sooner ISPs take a proactive(shudder jargon word) stand against offenders and start to disalow the traffic or manage problems (im aware many people are victums , but this gives them an alert that they have an infected PC ), the sooner we can start to enjoy our times online without fear of Spam or fear that our servers will be DDoS'ed into the ground.,

    --
    The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    1. Re:MSIE Deletion squad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      90% of the DDoS problem would be dealt with if ISPs used competent edge filtering on their networks. If traffic is leaving your florida-based network addressed from China, just drop it already. That'd stop most of the script kiddies with their stupid scripts that spoof from random IPs. Likewise, don't let pings come into your network to your broadcast address. These are simple things that don't even involve examining the contents of packets or throttling bittorrent/voip/yourfavoriteapp, yet across the whole planet, there are a ton of incompetently run networks.

    2. Re:MSIE Deletion squad by GtKincaid · · Score: 3, Funny

      IF there's somethign strange , in your network group Who You Gonna Call .. DDOS butsters If your packets are strange , and your email slow Who You Gonna Call .. DDOS busters

    3. Re:MSIE Deletion squad by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      The sooner ISPs take a proactive(shudder jargon word) stand against offenders and start to disalow the traffic or manage problems (im aware many people are victums , but this gives them an alert that they have an infected PC )

      I doubt that the fingerprint sharing alliance will have much direct effect upon this problem. It will help ISPs better manage traffic generated by DoS attacks launched by infected home computers, but most of the ISPs have had a list of infected hosts for a while now (one is provided by the same software that is used to share fingerprints). I think most ISPs don't alert home user's when their machine is compromised because it is not cost effective for them.

    4. Re:MSIE Deletion squad by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      90% of the DDoS problem would be dealt with if ISPs used competent edge filtering on their networks.

      Even better would be filtering as close to the customer as possible - if your DSL connection has been allocated the network 1.2.3.4/29 then all traffic from your DSL *not* coming from 1.2.3.4/29 can be filtered at the ISP end of the DSL pipe - i.e. it's filtered before it even enters the ISP network. This prevents spoofing of other users on the same ISP - any unblocked traffic would easilly be traced back to the customer who sourced it since it would *have* to come from the customer's allocated subnet.

      (This stuff shouldn't really be rocket science - ISPs do traffic shaping on a per-DSL basis so there's absolutely no reason why they can't also do source address filtering on a per-DSL basis).

    5. Re:MSIE Deletion squad by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      I thought DSL (and dialup) already had that, and that was only an issue with cable modem.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    6. Re:MSIE Deletion squad by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      I thought DSL (and dialup) already had that, and that was only an issue with cable modem.

      Not from what I've seen - some ISPs filter spoofed traffic with a source address outside the ISP's network, others appear to do no filtering at all. I'm not sure if any bother to filter based on a customer's allocated network.

  9. What's REALLY going on... by IdJit · · Score: 1

    "members of the alliance can share internet threat information with each other in real time"

    That and some sweet downloads.

  10. Looks great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Looks great and all, but according to one of those screenshots, alot of the ICMP packets are coming from 172.x.x.x addresses. I asked my ISP if they could dish me out a few of these once awhile back, but they kept on declining everytime I asked. What gives?

    Also, they say this bad boy runs on OpenBSD. Where can I download my copy?

    1. Re:Looks great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try 172.16/12.

  11. Barracuda Networks by p0 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The best example for collaborative evil fighting is www.barracudanetworks.com

    --
    This is my sig. There are thousands more, but this one is mine.
    1. Re:Barracuda Networks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've heard that product is great against spam and viruses, but does it provide any protection at the network level?

    2. Re:Barracuda Networks by doombob · · Score: 1

      I work for an ISP that uses this, and it's much better sounding than all of this vague "Fighting Evil" garbage.

  12. I know its like 2 days early, but.... by fizze · · Score: 3, Informative


    ....I'd like to remind ppl of RFC 3514

    --
    Powerful is he who overpowers his temptations.
  13. So finally ... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 0

    ... they implement the evil bit?

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    1. Re:So finally ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and it took them almost exactly a year to do that!

  14. prominent...... by mwdmeyer · · Score: 4, Funny

    A group of prominent Internet providers
    Not after we slashdotted them :\

    Shouldn't these so called "Internet providers" cope with a small increase in traffic?

    1. Re:prominent...... by failure-man · · Score: 1

      Who you callin' small?

      We're Slashdot - the world's friendliest dDOS attack! Few servers have stood alone against our might and kept running . . . . .

  15. I just wonder what the next headline will be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    RIAA and MPAA Team Together to Create Kryptonite would be my guess.

  16. "Internet Providers Band Together to Fight Evil" by TheSpeedoBeast · · Score: 4, Funny

    This could be the greatest comic book. Ever.

  17. Internet automimmune diseases by G4from128k · · Score: 4, Informative

    Initiatives such as this one are part of a move toward an internet immune system -- active systems that watch for and halt undesirable activities. But like the mammalian immune system, it will doubtless be subject to false positives. This raises the potential for auto-immune diseases such as when someone's IP is inappropriately blacklisted.

    The core of the problem will be a disconnect between the fast response time required for properly halting fast-spreading malware (e.g., a compact worm that attacks even just 1% of hosts will probably double its infected base every second and saturate the entire net within a minute) and the slower response times of human-mediated due-process procedures. The need to quickly halt infections will lead to a hair-trigger system that may shutdown innocent hosts or kill legitimate activity.

    Internet auto-immune diseases are potentially quite serious as that actually create a serious new vulnerability. Criminals could try to trigger an immune response on a target and trigger an immunity-DOS response on the target by using the system against itself.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
    1. Re:Internet automimmune diseases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha! This is so gay. The editors who modded you up obviously don't have a clue about computer security and think that the implications of this biological analogy are something other than obvious... proving once again that Slashdot is quickly flushing itself down the toilet.

  18. what is this supposed to mean? by dAzED1 · · Score: 1
    from the razor home page, top right corner. "spam should not be propagated beyond necessity"

    Is just engrish or something? What amount of spam propagation is necessary? Can't the last two words there just be dropped?

    1. Re:what is this supposed to mean? by Samedi · · Score: 0

      I guess it's the internet age equivalent to 14th century Occam's Razor: "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".

    2. Re:what is this supposed to mean? by vertinox · · Score: 1

      What amount of spam propagation is necessary?

      I don't know that answer, but I know "beyond necessity" is 1.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  19. Make it more secure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't know how secure it is now, how the hell do you know it needs to be made more secure? It is an openbsd box, and I really doubt they are running alot of public services on them.

  20. Evil bit by isorox · · Score: 1

    Finally the evil bit is going to be used! They start on Friday.

  21. NetFlow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It sounds a bit like Razor, doesn't it?"

    Not even remotely, no.

  22. RFC 3514 by sTeF · · Score: 1

    Since they are the ones providing the pipes, they could really give a boost to the RFC 3514 a.k.a. Evil Bit for filtering out the unwanted packets ...

  23. Special Powers by pklong · · Score: 1, Funny

    "Internet Providers Band Together to Fight Evil"

    I wonder what their special powers will be. I know BT's agreement with ET will enable it to fly bicycles and heal sick things with a glowing finger, but what about the others?

    (Sorry American people etc. You probably haven't seen the adverts.)

    --

    Philip

    Signatures are broken

  24. How it works by hal9000(jr) · · Score: 5, Informative

    Ok, Peakflow SP tracks and reports on network flows and the associated data gleaned from a flow such as src/dst IP addresses and ports, bytes transferred, duration of flow, etc. It does't capture packet data (though you can do that on a limited basis). A flow is a unique network transaction that starts with the first packet from a source to a destination and ends with either a time-out(no packet sent) or in the case of TCP, a close sequence (RST, FIN).

    What is interesting about this is that traffic like DoS/DDoS attacks port scans have unique network fingerprints. For example, a DDoS attack is a large amount of traffic to a single source, often without any return traffic. That is unusual. Sure, the /. effect might trigger a DoS alert, but someone has to go investigate the cause. Besides, how many sites get /.ed on a daily basis? But in general, flash traffic would be seen.

    What this means for service providers, hopefully, is that they can more quickly respond to attacks and improve the general health of the networks they manage by locating the source of the malicious traffic more quickly.

  25. Automatic upstream firewalling by NoMercy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Subject says it all, and it's pretty much all I want, a automated system where by if I say I don't want to recieve ICMP messages for the next hour, my ISP firewalls them off.

    A similar system could be employed by the ISP to inform the backbone to stop sending them specific types of packet for a while, and mabie evolved so that backbones can tell large ISPs to filter some of there customers from sending packets at a specific target.

  26. A taste of the medicine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, there you have it. The Fingerprint Sharing Alliance has been ./ed, and they are hosed. I guess that proves we really need it.

  27. Fighting Evil-Doers? by lbmouse · · Score: 1

    Maybe they should change the name of the organization to the Civic Minded-18. Of course their battle cry is going to have to be, "Let's Make A Difference!"

  28. Blunt Marketing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    First of all, some more details about this project can be found here.

    There is nothing new about the idea, in fact, it's long overdue. There is however something new in the idea having a practical implementation. The problem so far was that various network operators use very different hardware and software to monitor their networks (if at all..), thus, the idea of a 'fingerprint' may vary. Sharing becomes difficult.

    By standarlizing on one platform (Arbor Networks PeakFlow SP), this becomes possible. All operators have the same device, which, coupled with this functionality, can finally bring this idea to life.

    PeakFlow SP are Intel/OpenBSD boxes with additional Arbor software. They do however retail for 120,000$ per collector unit, and a collector unit can only proccess data from up to 5 devices (usually routers which export NetFlow formatted data). This is quite a steep entrance fee to pay for the pleasure; and many of the smaller players will never be able to afford this.

    In fact, it's all not much more than clever marketing for overpriced Arbor devices; without the initiative, you can easily look toward other products (Cisco GuardXT, ex-Riverhead, many others). With the initiative, you now have a bit more of a reason to send $120,000 to Arbour.

    Expect every security vendor to have a similar central fingerprinting repository soon. Non-compatible with one another, ofcoure.

    1. Re:Blunt Marketing? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      In fact, it's all not much more than clever marketing for overpriced Arbor devices; without the initiative, you can easily look toward other products (Cisco GuardXT, ex-Riverhead, many others).

      A system like this relies upon two factors; intelligence and filtering horsepower. One nice benefit to Arbor's offering (as opposed to riverhead/cisco) is that while Arbor provides the intelligent part of the system, they will interoperate with any vendor's filtering horsepower. If Cisco's system ever actually starts working, you can bet it will only work with their own offering.

      You are probably right about multiple fingerprint repositories appearing in the next couple of years.

    2. Re:Blunt Marketing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some inaccuracies here:

      1. Peakflow SP DoS can handle NetFlow from quite a few more than 5 routers - the capacity depends upon flows/sec and whether NetFlow sampling is used or if the NetFlow is 1:1.

      2. Arbor Peakflow SP DoS is a detection system, the Cisco Guard XT is a mitigation system. It's not an either/or thing, the one complements the other (in fact, a lot of SPs use Arbor for Detection and the Guard for mitigation, along with remotely-triggered blackholes or RTBH based upon destination or source address).

  29. always going to have to pay by mikieboy · · Score: 0

    the worrying bit is the "revenue-generating service" of identifying and stopping DDOS mentioned in the ManagedServices bit of the website
    it's like, either pay the bad dewds to not dos you or pay your telco to stop it happening when it does

  30. Open Source "Appliance" using Snort + IPtables by mwilliamson · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Texas A&M University has put together an open source tool called NetSquid which can be put inline with your evil users (dorms). It then automagically identifies viral outbreaks (via snort rule matching) and cuts their access (using iptables) to everything except an internal Webserver to notify them of their infection. If they stop spewing viral traffic for a pre-set time, it allows them back on without IT staff intervention.

    http://netsquid.tamu.edu/

    1. Re:Open Source "Appliance" using Snort + IPtables by FireFury03 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      cuts their access (using iptables) to everything except an internal Webserver to notify them of their infection.

      An additional point - the internal web server should really provide the tools to clean the infection, otherwise someone's gonna be screwed when their access to the clean up tools has been blocked. Even smarter would be to identify the infection and redirect them to a page that contains the tools and instructions for cleaning that specific infection. (Hell, for people using IE the internal webserver could exploit one of the many security holes in it and automagically clean the machine. :)

    2. Re:Open Source "Appliance" using Snort + IPtables by Triumph+The+Insult+C · · Score: 1

      snort is still around?

      one of the only tools that allows for a box with no ip to be hacked. fantastic

      --
      vodka, straight up, thank you!
    3. Re:Open Source "Appliance" using Snort + IPtables by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there anything you would suggest using instead? For OpenBSD or behind an OpenBSD fw?

    4. Re:Open Source "Appliance" using Snort + IPtables by mwilliamson · · Score: 1

      One of the NetSquid developers is currently working on a port to (Free|Net|Open?)BSD/pf.

    5. Re:Open Source "Appliance" using Snort + IPtables by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Network Security team at TAMU has their shit together. Back in the good old days, there were only two tcp ports opened up to the dorms, port 25 and 80. I was fortunate enough to have lived in one of the first dorms to get Ethernet and the allure of running a site to get access to 0-day warez proved to be too much. I (stupidly) put my FTP server on port 25 and within 5 hours both ports to my room had been disabled. After calling the NOC, I was redirected to Student Judicial Services for punishment. I confessed to the crime and I was threatened with expulsion if I did anything else. I'm glad they didn't involve the Feds. I almost got in trouble again a few years later for taking over #aggies on Efnet, but I was acquitted, =).

  31. Re:got it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lay off him. He's going through a messy divorce and his mind isn't exactly on his work.
    These people have lives outside of slashdot, you know.

  32. This is great and all but, by Sevn · · Score: 0

    I notice no AOL on this list. The single largest provider of drone machines for botnets. You'd think they'd want in on something like this.

    --
    For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
  33. Captain Internet? by Jesus_666 · · Score: 2, Funny

    When I read "Internet Providers Band Together to Fight Evil" for some reason I had the mental image of a bunch of kids with the names of major ISPs written on their T-shirts running around with rings containing the power of broadband, low latency etc.
    Whenever the evil Doctor Congestion and Señor Spam try to take over the 'Net they come together to summon Captain Internet who saves the day and educates us about how to use up less bandwidth.

    --
    USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  34. This could be perfect for fighting zombie spam by minas-beede · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If they would but do it this coalition could expand their concern to the detection and prevention of zombie spam (that is, abuse of systems within each provider's IP space as zombies) they could begin the process of eliminating spam. Not dealing with spam, eliminating spam. It's long past time for that.

    The great unexploited opportunity for eliminting spam is at the intermediate level (that is, ahead of the destination server for the spam.) If they had been implemented in sufficient numbers at the appropriate time (with "sufficient numbers" being below 1% of all IP addresses) open relay and open proxy honeypots could have eliminated spam - before the spammers had a chance to advance to zombies.

    The great anti-spam opportunity is still at the intermediate level (where distinguishing spam from valid email isn't necessary - no valid email follows the path spam takes.) At the intemediate level anti-spam actions can easily be 100% effective, 100% accurate. No spam delivered, no valid email (of which there is none using that path) wrongly stopped.

    All it would take would be for ISPs and others to detect the abuse and then act against it - in all the ways they can or in all the ways they choose (some, for instance, might cling to the "only blocking is good" philospohy. OK, let them only block - it still is productive, even though it's way less so than interception, since the spammers can simply choose another abuse path when they experience blocking. For interception the spammers first need to learn that the spam is bieng intercepted. It's always good to make life harder for the spammers, to add to their burden.)

    1. Re:This could be perfect for fighting zombie spam by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      The great anti-spam opportunity is still at the intermediate level (where distinguishing spam from valid email isn't necessary - no valid email follows the path spam takes.) At the intemediate level anti-spam actions can easily be 100% effective, 100% accurate. No spam delivered, no valid email (of which there is none using that path) wrongly stopped.

      Spam currently follows a pretty recognizable pattern on the internet. That does not mean zombies could not be programmed to send spam in a less recognizable way, or in a way that mimics normal e-mail usage. This could slow down spam, but I doubt it is a good long term solution.

    2. Re:This could be perfect for fighting zombie spam by minas-beede · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Spam currently follows a pretty recognizable pattern on the internet. That does not mean zombies could not be programmed to send spam in a less recognizable way, or in a way that mimics normal e-mail usage. This could slow down spam, but I doubt it is a good long term solution."

      It's always going to be packets in to some IP address, always going to be packets out to port 25 at some other IP address. The nastiest technique would be to have a local network of zombies so that the incoming packets go to a different IP address from the source of the outgoing packets to port 25 - and at some appreciable time delay after the receipt of the packets that control the zombies. That's part of why I think that an ISP-level counter-attack is needed - single IP address monitoring might be inadequate.

      If spam were a low-level abuse then that would be a fairly formidable problem. With the huge volume of spam as it is detecting the abuse is far easier, is it not?

      The article talks of sharing the "fingerprints" of the abuse, which seems to indicate that one of the design goals is to anticipate and provide for a constantly-changing pattern of abuse rather than assume a fixed pattern.

      In any case the mere fact that the proposed solution is based on a cooperative approach rather than on a collection of individual approaches is, IMHO, a step forward.

      Thanks for your comment.

    3. Re:This could be perfect for fighting zombie spam by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      The article talks of sharing the "fingerprints" of the abuse, which seems to indicate that one of the design goals is to anticipate and provide for a constantly-changing pattern of abuse rather than assume a fixed pattern.

      It is true that you can fingerprint traffic on a variety of criteria, and recognize particular types of use. The problem is that their are only a limited number of traffic characteristics that can be easily gathered an analyzed on a macroscopic scale. You can evaluate the ports, packet sizes and characteristics, regular use intervals and times, changes in behavior, etc. Without inspecting the contents of packets, however, their is nothing to prevent spam bots from imitating normal traffic patterns, or even just typical traffic patterns. If a host begins talking on port 25 did a worm just start spamming or did the user sign up for a new e-mail account?

      The easiest traffic to spot is the worm propagation traffic that compromises machines in the first place. The trick is making it cost effective for ISPs to notify users. Some countries are starting government agencies to deal with spam and worms. ISPs can easily provide them with a list of infected hosts that they can contact with the appropriate worm remedy. The problem is mostly logistics and funding, the technical part has been solved for a long time. I see this as the most realistic solution to spam zombies.

    4. Re:This could be perfect for fighting zombie spam by minas-beede · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If a host begins talking on port 25 did a worm just start spamming or did the user sign up for a new e-mail account?

      What's the destination of the port 25 packets? In general I don't wish to examine packet contents, only size and ports and IP addresses. For abuse packets my feeling is that the ISP has a complete right to fully examine them - the ISP is acting to protect itself and is not intercepting valid traffic.

      The easiest traffic to spot is the worm propagation traffic that compromises machines in the first place.

      I won't argue, although a bunch of port 25 traffic going elsewhere shouldn't be that hard to spot. If the spammers spread the zombies out so much that each need only carry a tiny bit of spam traffic (keeping the volume down and making it less detectable from port 25 volume) they also potentially hit more IP addresses for which port 25 traffic volume isn't the only criterion. In any case I think they hit zombies less hard than they used to hit open relays and open proxies, although that is an opinion backed by no data at all (other than what I know about how heavily they hit some open relay honeypots.)

      The trick is making it cost effective for ISPs to notify users.

      I'd like to see far more effort by ISPs to notify the ISPS of the sources of the abuse. Which appears to be (in part) the nature of this new plan, if the source ISP is a participant. Spam abuse is an internet-wide problem, not a single ISP problem. There needs to be effective cooperation and timely sharing of information about abuse as it happens.

      Some countries are starting government agencies to deal with spam and worms. ISPs can easily provide them with a list of infected hosts that they can contact with the appropriate worm remedy.

      Ah. Exactly.

      The problem is mostly logistics and funding, the technical part has been solved for a long time. I see this as the most realistic solution to spam zombies.

      I think the biggest problem, dwarfing logistics and funding, is the human problem. It is in fact very difficult to get those in charge of security to look outside their own domains, to consider anything beyond what they've already chosen to do. Most prefer a combination of blocking and of sternness towards their own users who operate compromised machines. This after the ISP blithely, inattentively, and unconcernedly delivered the packets that caused the infection. "All the fault lies in the users" could be their motto, "never in us."

      System administrators almost all treat spam as a single-system problem to be handled at the destination server (the single system.) It is nearly impossible to persuade anyone to act against spam earlier in the spam path (and when they do act it is almost entirely a combination of blocking and "blame their own customer for the abuse committed by the spammer.") You can see the result: spam continues to flow.

      Thanks again for your comments. Do note that I'm strictly a loudmouth: I'm doing nothing at all to fight spam. I gave it up in January.

      OK, I did something incredibly tiny: I just looked to see if ZoneAlarm was still logging proxy port attempts (which could indicate a continuing volume of open proxy spam: if it is spammers looking for proxy ports they're doing it to find a way to send their spam.) I found 3, all to port 8080.

      (I have a hardware firewall. It passes packets to open proxy ports so that I can log them using ZoneAlarm.)

    5. Re:This could be perfect for fighting zombie spam by minas-beede · · Score: 1

      Screwed up the italics, didn't I?

      Sigh.

    6. Re:This could be perfect for fighting zombie spam by minas-beede · · Score: 1

      OK, I miscounted the packets to proxy ports - there were more than three (fifteen, in fact.) I find these three interesting: FWIN 3/30/2005 9:17:04 AM -6:00 GMT 66.35.250.150 slashdot.org 39285 192.168.123.19 N/A 1080 TCP (flags:S) No FWIN 3/30/2005 9:17:10 AM -6:00 GMT 66.35.250.150 slashdot.org 39289 192.168.123.19 N/A 3128 TCP (flags:S) No FWIN 3/30/2005 9:17:18 AM -6:00 GMT 66.35.250.150 slashdot.org 39297 192.168.123.19 N/A 8080 TCP (flags:S) No My guess is that slashdot is checking to see if my IP addess has an open proxy so that they can know to reject my postings (on the theory they are bogus postings through the open proxy.) (Unlike many I don't get bent out of shape over tests directed at my IP address.)

  35. Obligatory by TractorBarry · · Score: 2, Funny

    (goofy tech looking at LAN Monitor) What's that on the LAN ?

    Is it a torrent packet ?

    Is it a ping ?

    No... it's ISP man !!!!

    I just hope they wear good tights. Superheros need good tights.

    --
    Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
  36. A good cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm glad the likes of Verizon and MCI will be attempting to save me from the evil-doers.

  37. Re:MSIE Deletion squad [winhat] by winhat2 · · Score: 1

    You cleave to the muzzle of a bunch of fat enveloping whales.

    The ankle is the time to kill. Dont forget to stab you in your general direction. I dislike it because you have any cocane?

    What the fuck are you fucking talking about but cannot recall what i have a very easy job. The kind robots will be ddos'ed into the ground.

  38. "Sounds a bit like razor, doesn't it?" by jon3k · · Score: 1

    I wish it sounded more like DCC, which is vastly superior.

  39. From the title... by kmartshopper · · Score: 1

    ... I thought for a minute maybe everyone was going to gang up on SCO.

  40. Are you kidding? by seanvaandering · · Score: 2, Funny

    Will they all be wearing spandex bodysuits and flowing capes to work?

    Oh god, please... NO. I have this delicate image of a 300 pound sysadmin with greasy hair and beard wearing what you described. For some reason, I have now completely lost my appetite...

  41. Re:got it! by TFGeditor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "These people have lives outside of slashdot, you know."

    Would that I could mod this +10 Insightful and put it up in 40-point flashing type.

    --
    Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
  42. None of this will ever work by MerlinTheWizard · · Score: 1

    Until every provider (or at least a significant number of them) starts using new standards, and particularly for e-mail. Spam via e-mail is one of the biggest problems today, and it is all because of an extremely inadequate e-mail standard. In my opinion, this where it should all begin. Is that one of the goals clearly stated by this "alliance"?

  43. Great Firewall of China? by MacDork · · Score: 1
    Subject says it all, and it's pretty much all I want, a automated system where by if I say I don't want to recieve ICMP messages for the next hour, my ISP firewalls them off.

    This seems fine if it is only done at your request. But with the system in place, isn't there a central authority that can turn things on and off at their own whim? When I first read about this, it seemed more like a "Great Firewall of China" controlled by American corporations. I hope I am mistaken.

    1. Re:Great Firewall of China? by NoMercy · · Score: 1

      The User-ISP one is pretty solid. The only diference to the current system is where the filtering takes place. Instead of you filtering out incoming pings (for example) the filtering would be done on the other side of the Cable/ADSL line, thus freeing the limited-bandwidth link for valid trafic.

      It could be abused in some situations, but for the most part, some simple rules to remove filters which arn't in use anymore, and to ensure only sensible requests are made would probably make it very dificult for any organisation on it's own to abuse the system.

      Mabie if I find time I'll write out the idea and pick though all the issues, been on my mind for a long time, under the basic principle, of why should I recieve DDoS's why can't the zombies ISPs shut off the flow and save the harm to me, my ISP and the backbones.

  44. Re:"Internet Providers Band Together to Fight Evil by toadlife · · Score: 1

    Or, at the very least, a good attention grabbing headline for a /. story. :)

    --
    I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
  45. Sounds Like TAACS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TAACS is an open-source system for doing very similar (automatically responding to threats) being put together by a student at the University of Texas - Pan American.

    http://taacs.python-hosting.com

  46. What does spam have to do with peakflow? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is all about beating DDoS which is more important to ISP's wanting to protect their precious bandwidth and high profile customers...

    Why is everyone talking about spam??

    This is a wonderful idea, long overdue but also a blatent marketing scheme to do something good but only give you the choice of buying product X to do so..

    the joys of capatalism

    Greg M

  47. Re:MSIE Deletion squad [winhat] by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 1

    This is why idiots shouldn't be let near computers...

  48. Re:fighting evil by bwj5x1 · · Score: 1

    foam-formation of all materials, EVEN POPULATION, is the worst of all. maybe that killed god!

  49. Check This by not_hylas(+) · · Score: 1


    http://www.forescout.com/activescout.html

    --
    ~hylas