Slashdot Mirror


Chinese ISP Hijacks the Internet (Again)

CWmike writes "For the second time in two weeks, bad networking information spreading from China has disrupted the Internet. On Thursday morning, bad routing data from a small Chinese ISP called IDC China Telecommunication was re-transmitted by China's state-owned China Telecommunications, and then spread around the Internet, affecting Internet service providers such as AT&T, Level3, Deutsche Telekom, Qwest Communications, and Telefonica. 'There are a large number of ISPs who accepted these routes all over the world,' said Martin A. Brown, technical lead at Internet monitoring firm Renesys. Brown said the incident started just before 10 am Eastern and lasted about 20 minutes. During that time the Chinese ISP transmitted bad routing information for between 32,000 and 37,000 networks, redirecting them to IDC instead of their rightful owners. These networks included about 8,000 US networks, including those operated by Dell, CNN, Starbucks, and Apple. More than 8,500 Chinese networks, 1,100 in Australia, and 230 owned by France Telecom were also affected."

171 comments

  1. configuration error?? by kevvraja · · Score: 0

    configuration error??

    1. Re:configuration error?? by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      configuration error??

      Sometimes diplomacy is required, like when 'getting shot' is referred to as lead poisoning.

  2. Accident by rmushkatblat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It was an accident, of course.

    1. Re:Accident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Once is an accident.
      Twice is a coincidence.
      Three times is enemy action."
      -- Gen. Douglas MacArthur

    2. Re:Accident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Once is an accident,

      Twice is coincidence,

      Three times is enemy action.

    3. Re:Accident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Once is an accident, Twice is coincidence, Three times is enemy action.

      And when it's four times in one night, you get married.

    4. Re:Accident by BrokenHalo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Three times is enemy action.

      I would agree, except that nobody gained anything from this action. I would surmise that this is another case of the Chinese fucking something up because they don't really know how it works.

      However, there's a good argument for not accepting any routing information from China at all: if they don't want to play along with the rest of the world's rules, then they don't get to play with our toys. A kick in the pants of that sort of magnitude is long overdue, but it would require our governments and corporations growing some balls.

    5. Re:Accident by tu160m · · Score: 1

      The Indian intelligence services seem to have had some foresight on the matter. Here's a link to a Times of India article about it. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Army-braces-for-cyber-attacks/articleshow/5767805.cms

    6. Re:Accident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once is an accident.

      Twice is a coincidence

      Three times is an Amy Adams.

  3. cut out the middleman by Michael+Kristopeit · · Score: 5, Funny

    now you can order iPad direct from china through apple.com

    1. Re:cut out the middleman by jc42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      now you can order iPad direct from china through apple.com

      Nothing new here. When I ordered this Macbook Pro last year, I was able to follow online its progress from the warehouse in Shanghai to my porch. Apple is now effectively a delivery and customer-support service for Asian manufacturers.

      Maybe eventually they will cut out the middleman, as IBM did a while ago with its Thinkpad laptops. Now you order them directly from Lenovo, which is a Chinese firm. The pretense that they were an IBM product has ended.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    2. Re:cut out the middleman by Michael+Kristopeit · · Score: 1

      well... the design and manufacturing process are still generated stateside. a lot of people on slashdot seem to think of those as inevitable.

    3. Re:cut out the middleman by jon3k · · Score: 1

      Without Apple the Chinese manufacturers would have nothing. Apple's business strategy, marketing, design and software development - the "magic" that actually separates Apple from every other tech company, none of this exists without Apple.

      You're basically saying that if I put together a jigsaw puzzle I invented it.

  4. Not unintentional by Nickodeemus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    All that data routed to the wrong place accidentally... hmmm sounds like a perfect excuse to me - for intelligence gathering. If it passes through their routers, they have the data.

    1. Re:Not unintentional by Ruede · · Score: 1

      i thought the same thing. information gathering... maybe some passwords....

    2. Re:Not unintentional by robmv · · Score: 2, Informative

      and add to that a Chinese CA certificate inside Firefox and even SSL could be sniffed

    3. Re:Not unintentional by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      If the networks that your traffic is being routed to doesn't simply melt sure.

      This has happened before quite a few times, it's a side of the internet which is surprisingly fragile.

    4. Re:Not unintentional by TreyGeek · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sounds a lot like "Stealthy IP Prefix Hijacking". Advertise a BGP route that will be accepted by some people to attract their traffic. Do it correctly, it may be less noticeable than a full prefix hijacking (though it was obviously noticed in this case). You can also attempt to moderate the amount of traffic you receive so that you don't DOS yourself with the incoming flow and you can analyze the traffic easier. BGP is a pretty insecure protocol and depends a lot upon the upstream providers filtering announcements properly.

    5. Re:Not unintentional by religious+freak · · Score: 1

      Intelligence gathering, or just general probing of ability to control the Internet (if only for a somewhat short period of time - and how much time do you need, really?)

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    6. Re:Not unintentional by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action." - Ian Fleming

      The next time one of these stories comes around, then you can jump to conclusion. Right now, well....

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
  5. Blacklist 'em by DogDude · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Until China learns how to act as responsible Internet citizens, I'll continue to blackhole as many of Chinese subnets as I can find both at work and home. Spam, malware, and every kind of crap comes from China, and I don't do business with any Chinese, so it's a no-brainer.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:Blacklist 'em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could you post that list somewhere to help the rest of us?

    2. Re:Blacklist 'em by pv2b · · Score: 5, Informative

      Blacklisting China's IP ranges would do nothing to protect you against bad routing - something you as an end user don't have any control over.

    3. Re:Blacklist 'em by Luke+has+no+name · · Score: 1

      I second the AC above: If someone has a link for all Chinese Internet-routable subnets in order to drop, that'd be cool.

      No, it won't protect against malicious fake routes, but it protects against attacks/scans/connections from legitimately Chinese networks.

    4. Re:Blacklist 'em by PNutts · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Until China learns how to act as responsible Internet citizens, I'll continue to blackhole as many of Chinese subnets as I can find both at work and home. Spam, malware, and every kind of crap comes from China, and I don't do business with any Chinese, so it's a no-brainer

      Well, since more SPAM comes from the US I assume you'll block those subnets too? http://www.spamhaus.org/statistics/countries.lasso

      Also, in March the US was the source of most malware, but since you already have that blocked for SPAM you should also block Korea who for some reason in the month of April took the lead. http://www.infosecurity-us.com/view/8547/korea-reigns-as-king-of-malware-threats-/

      In regard to China learning how to act as responsible Internet citizens, you are not leading by example.

    5. Re:Blacklist 'em by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      yes than your traffic can get router there anyway when the start advertising American, and European subnets.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    6. Re:Blacklist 'em by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

      http://www.blockbycountry.com/ can give you the list, though it'll come in the form of an htaccess block list that'll generate for you. Short work to convert it into a list of apf rules, though. But, as you are aware, this still won't protect against most-specific route advertisements to BGP peers.

    7. Re:Blacklist 'em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't do business with any Chinese

      And you posted this comment using a computer system that contains absolutely no Chinese-made or designed hardware or subcomponents? I call B.S.

    8. Re:Blacklist 'em by anarche · · Score: 1

      I think the point he's making is that he's blocking a country's list where that country has demonstrably proven not to trust its own citizens with the internet. Why should he?

      If you are offended, just block US subnets in retaliation?

      --
      Wait! Whats a sig?
    9. Re:Blacklist 'em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      English, motherfucker. Do you speak it?

    10. Re:Blacklist 'em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Dude pull your head out of the sand. The US government doesn't trust its own citizens too - that's why they datamine and wiretap your ass.

      The sheer hypocrisy and the little fantasies Americans tell themselves to feel better about themselves - need a new 'cold war' enemy to fight against, sandal-wearing dipshit? Was 'Al-Qaeda' as the big bad 'bogeyman' not doing enough to wet your sado-masochistic 'warrior' fantasies?

      I've never seen a more clear-cut example of 'pot calls kettle black'. America has been the no #1 importer/exporter of crime, terrorism, rape, and pillage for over 50 years now - but it helps when you can point at another country and say: "Them bad, we good". Never mind that the US gave most-favoured nation status to China, and still does so. If they're so 'bad', why won't the Congress drop that? Oh, that's right, all industry is over there - your cheap-ass goods wouldn't be getting made - you would have no clothes, no computer to type this shit on and all those other little perks that Chinese 'slave' wagers are manufacturing for you.

      You are a hypocrite at heart and you know it - in fact, that slogan McDonalds has - 'I'm loving it' - that's what you live by each and every single day. America - land of the cowardly and land of the delusional.

    11. Re:Blacklist 'em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why we need universal adoption of IPv6 and end-to-end large#bits encryption.

      But of course no government in the world wants this, because they wouldn't be able to snoop on everyone.

    12. Re:Blacklist 'em by dave3138 · · Score: 1

      This should be a good chunk of them. There's probably quite a few other AS #s for China as well: http://www.bgpmon.net/ASinfo.php?AS=4134

    13. Re:Blacklist 'em by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      I found this site that has Chinese and Korean lists in several formats

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    14. Re:Blacklist 'em by merc · · Score: 4, Informative

      I use http://www.countryipblocks.net/ -- they seem to do a pretty decent job of keeping their database up-to-date. It will also provide the output in varying formats (net/mask, CIDR, ip range, etc).

      --
      It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
    15. Re:Blacklist 'em by Galactic+Dominator · · Score: 1

      Wow, that is infallible logic. Completely repudiated.

      I wish to subscribe your newsletter, hmmm?

      --
      brandelf -t FreeBSD /brain
    16. Re:Blacklist 'em by pv2b · · Score: 1

      IPv6 does nothing to protect you against malicious routing updates, as far as I'm aware.

      IPsec is a mandatory feature of an IPv6 stack, but nobody's forcing anyone to use it.

    17. Re:Blacklist 'em by beadfulthings · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Of course, you are right about the routing. But since giving in to my baser impulses and blacklisting the entire country on my one humble web server, I've had a remarkable decrease in my annoyance factor in terms of crap like port scans, login attempts, comment spam in the blogs, and even a respite from the damned Baidu spiders who won't observe anybody's robots.txt file. Along about the fall of last year, I began observing what looked like attempts at ddos attacks--all originating from China. None of them succeeded, but my annoyance levels grew by leaps and bounds. When they started in with the UDP port scans (which I confess baffle me), I'd had enough. Incidentally, if you try to contact Baidu to see about their injudicious crawling, your email will most likely be returned with a note that your email provider has been blacklisted in China. I don't know what I'll do with all the time I'm saving--take up a hobby, perhaps.

      --
      "Here's what's happening. You're starting to drive like your Dad..." - Red Green
    18. Re:Blacklist 'em by X0563511 · · Score: 2, Informative
      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    19. Re:Blacklist 'em by GPLHost-Thomas · · Score: 1

      Seems they can't even read the "country" field of a whois: they report all of our class C in Singapore, when some are in Australia, Malaysia, Seattle, etc. I wouldn't trust them.

    20. Re:Blacklist 'em by Kenz0r · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I get thousands of SSH log in attempts coming from China every day. I also get some from South-Korea, some from Brazil, but none from the US.
      Spam is not the only factor to consider.
      It certainly DOES make sense to blacklist China in its entirety unless you're doing business with them.

      --
      +1 Funny Signature
    21. Re:Blacklist 'em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      legitimately Chinese networks

      ??!!

    22. Re:Blacklist 'em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All a matter of proportion. I have no clue what the stats are (I won't even waste time following your link), but I'd be shocked to find that the US doesn't account for considerably more traffic than the Chinese do. When the proportion of US malware attacks per unit of usage exceeds that of the Chinese, by all means, start crying about leading by example. Until then, do us all a favor and kick yourself in the nuts a dozen or two times. Cry-baby douchebag.

    23. Re:Blacklist 'em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whois data is not legally available for mass analysis.

    24. Re:Blacklist 'em by pv2b · · Score: 2, Informative

      Baidu's real spiders obey robots.txt. However there are plenty of malicious spiders out there who pretend to be Baidu in their User-agent string - giving Baidu a bad name in this area.

    25. Re:Blacklist 'em by beadfulthings · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but if Baidu wants us to believe that their spiders behave lawfully, they should arrange to receive lawful communications regarding them. As for me, I'm enjoying the respite--since the spiders stopped when I terminated the communication.

      --
      "Here's what's happening. You're starting to drive like your Dad..." - Red Green
    26. Re:Blacklist 'em by nobodie · · Score: 1

      China is schizophrenic. On the one hand they have a significant portion of the brightest and most highly skilled people in the world. On the other hand they have a significant portion of the world's lamo loosers. It's just a numbers thing. Where the schizo stuff really takes off though is that in IT, the guys that run the machines, that physically touch and type and admin stuff are grossly underpaid. They all have admin passwords and complete freedom to do what ever they think they are supposed to on the system. What this means in China is that the systems are a constant botched-up mess, crashing, failing, I mean, getting my email from the university in-house mail server is entirely hit and miss, with dropped attachments or gratuitous fail messages that include addresses for colleagues gone months ago. The last, frightening fact. One of the drones who was starting to show a spark of synaptic activity realized that he could go to work for Chine mobile and make almost twice the pay as a help-desk drone. No-brainer of course, but then I asked him what he had been getting paid at our university: 750RMB per month which is about $115. A month, for the guys who have physical access and the responsibility to run the system. They make mistakes???? big duh.

      --
      Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
    27. Re:Blacklist 'em by Obfiscator · · Score: 1

      A small point to clarify, since many people seem to misunderstand this.

      Do you know how many countries the US gives "most-favored nation" status to? Almost all of them. In 1998, it was renamed "normal trading relations", because that's exactly what it is: normal. It only means that the country has the lowest permissible tariffs on anything it exports to the US.

      You can keep the rest of your rant, but you really shouldn't use that point to support your argument, as it's not as special of a position as you make it out to be.

      --
      "Nothing shocks me. I'm a scientist." -Indiana Jones
    28. Re:Blacklist 'em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Your logic just proved that your conclusion about Chinese spam is illogical :)

    29. Re:Blacklist 'em by Wakko+Warner · · Score: 1

      To be fair, the American auto companies were behind the phony reports of Toyota accelerator problems. A lot of Americans were just fooled by the media.

      --
      "Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
    30. Re:Blacklist 'em by danielsfca2 · · Score: 1

      Oh, let me guess, 9/11 was an inside job too!
      And Obama's birth certificate is FAKE!

      Did I miss any? I actually hadn't ever heard that new conspiracy theory before. Thanks, I'll add it to the collection.

    31. Re:Blacklist 'em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess you build your own clothes and computers out of coconuts.

    32. Re:Blacklist 'em by jon3k · · Score: 1

      I do business with some Americans that might come from those netblocks, so I can't block them. I don't do any business with anyone in China (or a statistically negligible amount, anyway) so I can block those networks.

    33. Re:Blacklist 'em by jon3k · · Score: 1

      Yes because if I buy a computer indirectly from Chinese through an American corporation I better unblock their networks.

      You sir are a fucking moron.

    34. Re:Blacklist 'em by supssa · · Score: 1

      I bogon their IPs and block their ASNs from my table...

      --
      Hatin' on products I don't like and getting modded up talking about tech I totally don't understand like it was 2005!
  6. An old saying... by marmoset · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Once is an Accident, twice is a Coincidence, and three times is a Pattern."

    1. Re:An old saying... by Jaysyn · · Score: 3, Informative

      Three times is enemy action.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    2. Re:An old saying... by MagikSlinger · · Score: 4, Informative

      The correct quote is:

      "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action."

      -- Auric Goldfinger, "Goldfinger" by Ian Fleming

      --
      The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
    3. Re:An old saying... by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, but it came from Confucius so it can't be trusted.

    4. Re:An old saying... by timeOday · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Wow, I can't believe the level xenophobia in here. Hate to break it to you guys, but BGP misconfiguration has always been an issue with the Internet and happens all the time (that paper is from 2002 btw). (Oh noes! Pakistan is attacking us too! And Spain! And we're even attacking ourselves!

      You hawks would be funny if some of you didn't hold power.

    5. Re:An old saying... by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      "A communications disruption can mean only one thing... invasion!" - some shitty Star Wars movie

    6. Re:An old saying... by DriedClexler · · Score: 4, Funny

      Confucius say, Man who walk through airport turnstile sideways is going to Bangkok.

      *GONG*

      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
    7. Re:An old saying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Xenophobia is misplaced agression towards an outside force/community with no known reason.
      We're 50+ years past that point.

    8. Re:An old saying... by NatasRevol · · Score: 1
      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    9. Re:An old saying... by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      "Once is an Accident, twice is a Coincidence, and three times is" ...enemy action, I think it was. Appropriately.

    10. Re:An old saying... by rwyoder · · Score: 1

      "Once is an Accident, twice is a Coincidence, and three times is a Pattern."

      Uh, oh! Did anyone notice The Observer in the vicinity?

    11. Re:An old saying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Hmmm... yousa point is well seen. " -- Jar Jar Binks

    12. Re:An old saying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      of course 4 times or more is classified as a conspiracy and the more evidence mounts up the more people will pretend you're crazy for the lulz

    13. Re:An old saying... by timeOday · · Score: 1

      What about it? If somebody recycles a quote, it's presumably because they think it has some relevance to the topic of discussion. The fact that it's a quote is irrelevant to whether it's used to make an ignorant point.

    14. Re:An old saying... by jon3k · · Score: 1

      If we were xenophobic then wouldn't we be afraid of Pakistan and Spain in your examples? I forgive your ignorance because clearly you don't live in the US and you're not constantly deluged by the millions of attacks coming from China 24 hours a day -- but understand this: this is not an incident in isolation.

  7. Wiskey Tango Foxtrot by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Any sufficient level of Incompetence is indistinguishable from Malice.

    Solution however is exactly the same.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    1. Re:Wiskey Tango Foxtrot by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

      I think they're hoping that the people don't notice that the opposite can be true as well.

    2. Re:Wiskey Tango Foxtrot by namoom · · Score: 0

      the only difference between genius and stupidity is genius has limits

    3. Re:Wiskey Tango Foxtrot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any sufficient level of competence is indistinguishable from benevolence?

      OR

      fail

    4. Re:Wiskey Tango Foxtrot by RubberChainsaw · · Score: 0, Troll

      Solution however is exactly the same.

      Nuke them from orbit?

      --
      I welcome our new 99% overlords.
  8. What about signing & certificates? by Turzyx · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The ISP in question only controls 30 networks, yet other routers blindly accepted thousands. Why isn't there basic verification of such re-configurations? I'm actually very shocked, the potential for abuse is huge; and TWICE as well.

    1. Re:What about signing & certificates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It wasn't the same ISP twice, I don't think.

      And you cannot do 'basic verification' of such things on our side of the pond, that's not how BGP works. It's unreasonable to enumerate every block that China Telecommunications announces, as they are a very, very large ISP. The problem was that they in turn should have verified what the small ISP was allowed to announce. But they didn't, those routes popped up on their routers and then propagated out.

    2. Re:What about signing & certificates? by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 3, Informative

      No one wants to move to secure BGP (which uses PKI to validate route announcements) for a variety of reasons. Google "secure bgp" or "sbgp" to familiarize yourself with the situation.

    3. Re:What about signing & certificates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can only find RFCs and things alike.
      Could you provide a short explanation on the problems?

    4. Re:What about signing & certificates? by Zarhan · · Score: 1

      That's because there are better solutions, including LISP (Not the (()))()(), but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locator/Identifier_Separation_Protocol - which has just been implemented by Cisco.

  9. built to spill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ... faulty by design.

  10. Fall guy by Manip · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why can one "small" ISP do this? I mean from a technical point of view how can they spread routing information for endpoints their network doesn't own? While they have clearly dropped the ball, I struggle to understand how they could accomplish this even if they tried, that is if everyone else's equipment is configured correctly *cough*

    1. Re:Fall guy by Paralizer · · Score: 4, Informative

      The internet runs the BGP routing protocol. It is by design a 'trust' system. You explicitly neighbor with autonomous systems you want to directly connect to and you freely exchange routes. It's possible to filter that routing information if you wanted (both in and out), but because you explicitly connected with them there's a certain level of "I trust anything you tell me, as I you should of me."

    2. Re:Fall guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep in mind where most of the world's routers are manufactured.

    3. Re:Fall guy by lukas84 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The small ISP can't do this if the big ISP would've done it's job properly.

    4. Re:Fall guy by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      If you are expecting a router to pass GOOD data, how hard is it to believe that someone can trick you into accepting BAD data?

      This is no different than you downloading a Windows Update that bluescreens your computer. Clearly your equipment isn't configured correctly.

      In actuallity, in order to route things through China, you have to trust China, and yes, that sucks, and yes, I'm using way too many comas.

    5. Re:Fall guy by diamondsw · · Score: 1

      However, why should a network be able to advertise routes for subnets that are out of its control? Even if we accept multiple levels of peering relationships, there should be some safeguards against overly broad routes and "hijacking" of networks known to be authoritatively announced by other peers.

      (Note: I'm genuinely asking, as I'm fairly ignorant of the design of BGP - I'm much more LAN than WAN.)

      The whole idea of "trust" on the network is something of an anachronism. The internet is not the secure, safe place it was 20 years ago. We slowly learned in computer science never to trust external sources with data (no client-side processing, whitelists instead of blacklists, basic data validation, etc), so why aren't we taking similar steps with the backbone of the internet?

      --
      I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
    6. Re:Fall guy by dave562 · · Score: 1

      I'm using way too many comas.

      If you were putting your comas to good use, you wouldn't have enough consciousness left to over-use the commas.

    7. Re:Fall guy by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      It reminds me of a scenario we had at work. We come in one day and find that about half the computers in the building are getting bad IP addresses, and as such, weren't able to connect to the email servers or the internet. We found out it was a rogue router on the network, dishing out 192.168.1.x/24 addresses when that specific building was under 172.21.30.x/20. We were lucky that it was obviously a default linksys setup, we were able to log into it once we found the IP and disable DHCP. Then we had to go through our routers and switches IPTables/MAC Tables to find out which port this rogue device was plugged in on. Gratefully, our ports are labelled, and each cable is labelled on the patch panel.

      So we go and its this dinky little thing inside a janitors closet. One of the lab computers and the lab instruments need to be on a 192.168.1.x/24 subnet because the lab instrument software is programmed terribly. So someone through that router down there years ago and solved the problem, forgetting about it entirely. Cleaning guys accidentally unplugged things one evening, and plugged things back in how they thought it went. They were wrong.

      And that is the kind of crap we have come to expect from a company with a network set up about as security intensive as the rest of the internet.

    8. Re:Fall guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > However, why should a network be able to advertise routes for subnets that are out of its control?

      Because they need to! If you're a large enough company you have your own IP space. Take a popular example: Microsoft. Microsoft is not an ISP, but they have plenty of their own public IP addresses assigned to them. Let's say Microsoft sits behind Level 3 as a carrier. Microsoft very much relies on Level 3 being able to announce that Microsoft is reachable through Level 3, even though Level 3 has absolutely no control over the networks Microsoft owns. In fact, Microsoft owns so much network space that it's fairly likely that Level 3 just trusts Microsoft and propagates the routes Microsoft tells them to because Microsoft moves network space from facility to facility as required, and doesn't want to have to deal with Level 3 every time a minor change is made.

    9. Re:Fall guy by zenchemical · · Score: 1

      because you don't know if the subnets are out of its control or not. If you have small-china-isp that is peered with BIG_ISP_A and BIG_ISP_B, and for some reason BIG_ISP_A has no route to BIG_ISP_B, the network is set up in such a way so that it will failover to its only path, which is BIG_ISP_A -> SMALL_CHINA_ISP ->BIG_ISP_B. this is part of the overall network fault tolerance strategy. - sean (previous voting member of seattle IX)

    10. Re:Fall guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The small ISP didn't do it, China Telecom did. The little ISP is just there to be blamed so China Telecom/CCP don't take the blame. It was very much intentional and probably some kind of cyber warfare test. I wouldn't be surprised if the "small ISP" is really owned by China Telecom anyway.

    11. Re:Fall guy by WuphonsReach · · Score: 1

      One of the lab computers and the lab instruments need to be on a 192.168.1.x/24 subnet because the lab instrument software is programmed terribly.

      One of the joys of being on the 172.x.x.x network scheme internally is finding devices like that. Everyone knows about 192.168.x.y and 10.x.y.z, but the 172 range tends to be overlooked.

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
    12. Re:Fall guy by jon3k · · Score: 1

      That's not entirely true. There's lots of route filtering going on. Typically a very small ISP shouldn't be capable of doing this because their BGP announcements should be filtered by their ISP. The closer you get to the core of the Internet the more difficult this becomes as you start dealing with Tier 1 carrier's peering sessions with thousands and thousands of routes being announced and changing constantly. But those aren't the type of people who make these types of "mistakes" as we're calling it.

    13. Re:Fall guy by jon3k · · Score: 1

      Well these bgp sessions are customer -> provider or in a peering arrangement between provider provider. It's not like some anonymous service available to anyone. They delivered the Internet circuit to the customer. If the customer fucks up bad enough they just turn them off. When you have someone by the balls you can afford a certain level of trust.

    14. Re:Fall guy by jon3k · · Score: 1

      except that both BIG_ISP_A and BIG_ISP_B should have filtered the announcements from SMALL_CHINA_ISP and never seen routes to the two big ISP's available via SMALL_CHINA_ISP

  11. Chinese bashing? by oldhack · · Score: 1

    How rare/common is such screwups? Or are we just bashing Chinese (not that I mind it all that much, don't let me get in the way)?

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    1. Re:Chinese bashing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It happens rather frequently. Several times a year.

      A large event was a few years back when Iran decided to block youtube.com by announcing their network space as being reachable via Iranian routers, and blackholing the traffic. Unfortunately they neglected to properly configure their outbound prefix filters and that routing announcement made it onto the Internet at large, causing many international routers to believe youtube.com was reachable via Iran.

    2. Re:Chinese bashing? by Blackbrain · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This kind of thing happens all of the time. Subscribe to the operators list at http://www.nanog.org/ and you will see reports of mis-announced prefixes every month or two. This is just China bashing and media sensationalism. (Which I do mind very much, thank you)

      --
      Where would we be if Wheel had hid her round rock in a cave instead of showing everyone how it rolls?
    3. Re:Chinese bashing? by anarche · · Score: 1
      --
      Wait! Whats a sig?
    4. Re:Chinese bashing? by religious+freak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, I'd be interested in knowing if I'm paranoid against China and this type of thing for no reason, but (and maybe it's just my paranoia talking) I think there's pretty good reason to believe this is intentional. The only time I've ever heard of large scale screwups like this are with China and once with Pakistan.

      Are you saying this is truly a selection bias, or are the Chinese screwups more global in scope? Seems like propagating a small ISP to a large ISP to the entire Internet would be something I've heard before in other countries. Are there incidences in the past where 10% of ALL Internet traffic was routed through a different country?

      (I'm not trolling, this is a genuine question. Because if it does happen more often, maybe we should splash it on the /. front page every once in a while)

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    5. Re:Chinese bashing? by Blackbrain · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Don't get me wrong, this was a really big mistake. It doesn't happen often at this scale, but it does happen.

      In this case the prefixes what were mis-broadcast were sequential for the most part and covered several networks and countries, not a specific target. The bulk of the misrouted addresses were actually in China. They also didn't leak the routes (as in the Pakistan incident) but re-originated the prefixes, pre-pending their AS number to the announcement. This means "origin AS" based filters would have stopped the incident form even happening. I think that some poor technician fat fingered his BGP announcement, trying to do some traffic shaping. An actual attack would have been much more sophisticated.

      You will have to make your own decision about your paranoia against China.

      --
      Where would we be if Wheel had hid her round rock in a cave instead of showing everyone how it rolls?
    6. Re:Chinese bashing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, we know it happens but not at this scale and from a country that has always had questionable internet behavior. This is not directed to the innocent people of China but the government that control them. I have Chinese friends (one was my best man in my wedding) and I love them all. Uncover your eyes.

    7. Re:Chinese bashing? by religious+freak · · Score: 1

      Interesting - thanks for the technical info. If you hear of something this big in the future which involves a country other than China, I'd really appreciate an article, and I bet the /. editors would too. I think it would do a lot to remove the paranoia, if this does indeed happen in other places.

      Thanks again.

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
  12. When r they going to learn? by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    First of all don't pass by another country to go get your dns name resolution, use in home servers, second, if you are hopping through another country for x reason, you have to make sure to specify having NO name resolution until you are in local ground.
    Why are they not doing something about this, this is an old problem, and still needs to be updated it seems.

    1. Re:When r they going to learn? by pv2b · · Score: 1

      This hijack was on the routing level, not the DNS level.

  13. timeout by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, China. Until you learn to play nice with the other children, you go into timeout.

  14. Gotta Build A Fence by MrTripps · · Score: 5, Funny

    Obviously the only way to protect the Border Gateway Protocol is to build a fence around it. (Spits. Scratches ass.)

    --
    "I'm not a quack, I'm a mad scientist! There's a difference." - Dr. Cockroach
    1. Re:Gotta Build A Fence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What for you scratch the donkey?

  15. What exactly happened? by King+Coopa · · Score: 1

    So let me get this strait... IDC sent out a EIGRP instructing all these routers to direct traffic through them?

    1. Re:What exactly happened? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IDC sent out BGP announcements for those prefixes, their uplink accepted them, the rest of the world accepted them from there.

      EIGRP is only used between Cisco routers, and while it can be used as an EGP it isn't used on the Internet as such. That's all BGP.

    2. Re:What exactly happened? by NeumannCons · · Score: 1

      Sort of. EIGRP is a routing protocol used within an organization (Interior Gateway Protocol or IGP). BGP is the routing protocol used between organizations (Exterior Gateway Protocol or EGP). So you may be running EIGRP (or OSPF, RIP2, etc) within your company but speaking BGP to the other companies your connected to. Also, while there are several IGPs, for all practical purposes, there's only one EGP (BGP). It functions similarly to other routing protocols, using metrics to detmine the best routes to other networks. If it advertises a better route to reach a network, everyone is going to start sending traffic destined for that network to them.

      This concludes our lesson for TLAs (Three Letter Acronyms).

    3. Re:What exactly happened? by zenchemical · · Score: 1

      This is actually pretty common among larger carriers, to trust network updates. One of the common BGP peering mistakes that used to be quite frequent is that small , multi-homed ISP's would misconfigure BGP from , say, uunet and sprint, and suddenly they would be routing uunet's traffic to sprint (oops). It's sort of how the network 'works', at a fundamental level, and it works really well if everybody basically trusts their peers and knows what they're doing.

    4. Re:What exactly happened? by RoboRay · · Score: 1

      It's sort of how the network 'works', at a fundamental level, and it works really well if everybody basically trusts their peers and knows what they're doing.

      You left out "...and are not malicious."

    5. Re:What exactly happened? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's the billion dollar question, isn't it?

  16. Why the FUCK does china still have internet access by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Why; God damn it WHY?!

      We could of saved a lot of taxpayer dollars cutting off China instead of drafting a "cyber terrorism bill"

  17. Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Notice they didn't hack Google, again. Lesson learned?

  18. oops, bad link; sorry by bsDaemon · · Score: 2, Informative

    I mistyped the link. The proper URL is http://www.blockacountry.com/

    1. Re:oops, bad link; sorry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mistyped the link. The proper URL is http://www.blockacountry.com/

      Don't worry, your typo was noticed and we automatically re-routed the IP address to the hostname you intended to link to.

  19. Re:go back to old school principles by neutrino38 · · Score: 1

    IP V6 everywhere
    static herarchical routing everywhere based on geographical IP addresses prefixex.
    like in the old telecom way.

  20. Almost Certainly Unintentional by billstewart · · Score: 5, Informative

    Limited-scope attacks like the Pakistani YouTube diversion are much more likely to be a deliberate attack; broad-spectrum attacks are obviously either mistakes (or really clever DDOS.) Advertising that you're the best route to half the world isn't exactly un-stealthy enough for intelligence gathering - and China doesn't have the bandwidth to handle that much traffic, either inside their entire country's network or especially across the Pacific; the only carriers with a chance of absorbing some fraction of AT&T's plus Level3's traffic are Verizon or possibly Google, and they're both competent enough not to do that.

    This kind of thing happens occasionally with BGP, which was designed to be run in a relatively trusted environment by relatively-to-extremely-competent people, which means that it only explodes occasionally and most major carriers do a good job of filtering routing announcements that look seriously wrong, and detecting when other people advertise bogus information about their networks. The typical cause used to be bad conversions between external BGP routes and internal OSPF or RIP routes, especially back when some random customer would have left autosummarization on so they'd take their two Class C subnets, combine them into the Class A that they're both in, and announce to everybody in the world that they were the best route to reach the Tier 1 carrier who's their upstream (or who's the upstream of their local ISP, who wasn't bothering to filter their BGP announcements.)

    The first time this happened in a big way was a bit of a surprise, as some little ISP announced that their T1 line was the best way to reach all of MAE-EAST (i.e. half the world), so suddenly there were gigabits of traffic headed that direction, at least until their self-DDOS killed off most of the BGP sessions and somebody fixed it. Since then, if you try to advertise being the best route to some large carrier who has a /8, you'll find they're also advertising a pair of /9s (which win), and that they'll be calling your upstream carrier within a couple of minutes to get your BGP session shut down. On the other hand, if this happens, it also means your upstream carrier wasn't filtering your BGP announcements for sanity, so they may also not be good at having somebody who can answer the phone and quickly resolve that level of problem.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Almost Certainly Unintentional by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      they'll be calling your upstream carrier within a couple of minutes to get your BGP session shut down

      I wonder what would happen if there were no voice circuits anymore and everybody used VOIP? Would network operators use dedicated radio circuits to coordinate operations? I have this vision of them pulling up their own 80 metre antennas to ensure voice communication or maybe RTTY.

  21. Does Narus do business with China? by Beelzebud · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This should really be cause for alarm. Does China also use the Narus systems that the NSA is using to spy on all Americans?

  22. Re:Why the FUCK does china still have internet acc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why the FUCK does USA still have internet access?

  23. Trust but Verify by billstewart · · Score: 1

    As several other people have commented, the ISPs they connect to are responsible for doing some sanity filtering on the routes they announce. It's not universal, especially for connections between ISPs (as opposed to connections from end-user customers that use BGP for multi-homing, where ISPs usually do a better job), and there's nothing close to universal agreement about address range registration systems or how to validate BGP information.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Trust but Verify by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>there's nothing close to universal agreement about address range registration systems or how to validate BGP information.

      Given this same problem happened before back in the 90s, you'd think that they'd at least not allow negative route lengths to be propagated.

  24. Chinese fire drill? by StuartHankins · · Score: 3, Funny

    Someone had to say it.

  25. the latest hot status symbol: by Thud457 · · Score: 1
    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  26. Re:Why the FUCK does china still have internet acc by zero_out · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Our Grand Communist Party of the Great Nation of China plan to get the rest of the world to leave us alone about our glorious firewall, and desire, nay, duty to protect our citizens:

    Step 1: Push out Google

    Step 2: Muck up their internet

    Step 3: They kick us off "their" internet

    Step 4: Setup our own, national, internet

    Step 5: Be praised by the lesser nations for staying off their internet, rather than chastised for walling ourselves off and keeping their realfacts out

    Step 6: Spread propaganda, er... goodfacts about our Grand Communist Party of the Great Nation of China

    Step 7: Unlimited, eternal power to do whatever we please

  27. Filter BGP updates? by zenchemical · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is sort of the nature of BGP, at least when you are in the habit of trusting BGP peers. Methinks the large carriers should probably be in the habit of filtering BGP updates from chinese carriers, at least until they can pass "peering 101"

  28. Fat Chance that IPv6 actually fixes this problem by billstewart · · Score: 4, Interesting

    By "old-school principles", you did mean "pre-ARIN IPv4 Swamp Addresses", didn't you? :-)

    Yeah, the people who designed IPv6 hoped that by having a big enough address space with no pre-existing reservations, they could make routing simpler and cleaner and delay the problem of routers running out of special route table memory and routing protocol horsepower, but that was pretty much a pipe dream:

    • Medium-large businesses want to own their own address space instead of using provider-owned space so they've got the ability to change carriers without renumbering,
    • businesses that want multi-homing for diversity need to have routing table presence regardless of what size their address blocks are,
    • geographical addressing may be ok for single-site businesses, but tends to fail for businesses with multiple offices (at least multiple offices with public presence),
    • and anybody who wants to be an early adopter (i.e. actually be using IPv6 long enough to be stable before the IPv4 ship sails off the edge of the world and everybody else notices the dragons and their ISP does something useful about IPv6) is likely to spend the ~$1250 to get their own public IPv6 space as opposed to just building a tunnel to SiXXs or Hurricane Electric,

    so the IPv6 world's going to be a non-hierarchical mess just like the IPv4 world.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  29. Re:Why the FUCK does china still have internet acc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    'cause we created it. Thanks.

  30. does this imply large scale packet sniffing ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So while this was going on could the chinese save off the network traffic? They have the infrastructure Cisco routers, etc.
    Could they decrypt SSL packets ? It may take awhile but they're not doing this real-time.
    Go through any interesting attachments ? Spreadsheets, documents, ...
    I think I'll read up more on asymmetric warfare and the Red Army officer's paper on the subject.

  31. Corrections - every couple of years, and Pakistan by billstewart · · Score: 1

    It was actually Pakistan, not Iran, and significant problems are more like every couple of years - and most ISPs have enough filtering to prevent most accidental screwups from getting very far, at least for very long. But yeah, it's not rare, and it only takes multi-party incompetence, not malice.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  32. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How the hell can something like this happen? I thought the Internet was unstoppable... and a simple accident and fuck up things this much for so many people on the Internet? We need a new Internet. Seriously, we need to re-think most of our protocols.

  33. How to protect against this by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

    This is unlikely to be the last this will happen. What can be done to protect against this sort of issue?

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  34. Close enough by billstewart · · Score: 2, Informative

    ISPs use BGP to talk to each other, but internally they may use iBGP or EIGRP or OSPF or (once upon a time) RIP, and they usually have a complex routing structure internally and a small number of border routers that announce a simplified set of routes to their upstream carriers or peers. Badly-automated conversions between OSPF/etc and BGP are the easiest place to make a big mistake like that, though some operators are clever enough to break their routing purely by hand.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  35. Google versus China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    nuff said. Ok, I will ellaborate, but that shouldnt be neccecary. Do you really need to read more?

    This may be a cyberwar between a multinational corporation and China. Google will of course win this war. The war is secret, and not fought with bullets. Oh, you want to know even more? That is hardly neccecary, but I will go on.

    Also, we will need to equip an army of female acrobatic tech-warriors wearing tight-fitted latex with large open cleavages. That can probably keep the kung-fu chinese hackers at bay. Now you know all you need to know, no need to read further.

    If all fails, the US must deploy the sharks with laser-beams on their heads witch they used to sever the middle-eastern Internet connection some years ago. They can keep the US coast safe from spyware. But this is all. I swear! There is no more sinister things going on.

    Now, I must get back to my experiments. Nothing to see here .... move along....

  36. The Great Firewall of China, works two ways by Tisha_AH · · Score: 2, Funny

    Good walls work both ways. To "help" China from being tainted by the evil ways of us westerners let's just cut them off completely.

    --
    Tisha Hayes
  37. Failure of Tier 1 ISP's by Bruha · · Score: 1

    Tier 1 & 2 ISP's should really be filtering all subnets they own. A lot of them do, but also a lot of them do not or think their Tier 2's are handling it. I've seen a company who was assigned a /24 misstype a number and suddenly they're claiming a /16 and disrupt a bunch of our customers.

    Unfortunately many companies are ill equipped to detect this type of error, internally they may see everything is fine, but it's external traffic that's being detected.

    It's easy if you can setup a server to check who's advertising your AS and report if things change.

    1. Re:Failure of Tier 1 ISP's by Kymermosst · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah?

      What ISP owns 17.0.0.0/8? In fact, how does any ISP know what other ISP is allowed to advertise that prefix or a subnet of it?

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    2. Re:Failure of Tier 1 ISP's by jon3k · · Score: 1
      Depends on the relationship. But the easiest is Tier 1 to Tier 2 where the Tier 2 is a customer of Tier 1.

      In which case, the Tier 1 should filter announcements for anything other than:
      • address space they gave the tier 2 isp
      • portable address space owned by the tier 2
      • address space neither owned by the tier 1 or tier 2 but for another ISP who has provided a LOA to allow the tier 2 to announce that particular address space

      And to answer your other question, Apple owns 17.0.0.0/8
      OrgName: Apple Inc.
      OrgID: APPLEC-1-Z
      Address: 20400 Stevens Creek Blvd., City Center Bldg 3
      City: Cupertino
      StateProv: CA
      PostalCode: 95014
      Country: US

  38. Access to Zebra, Re:Blacklist 'em by ls671 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While at it, I offer you to query my own Zebra server, I guarantee to only return the best available routes ;-))

    http://www.gnu.org/software/zebra/

    Contact me off-line if you are interested.

    Seriously, I have some friends who do like you, they start by blocking China, then Korea, then end up blocking half of the world to enhance their security.

    In my humble opinion, this is not a valid security approach, I actually use some requests or connection attempts from these countries to test and strengthen my security. Hackers can get to your machine from US relays/proxies or US compromised machine anyway and blocking only drops the packets as they arrive to your machine, no DOS protection or bandwidth savings.

    In short, I believe blocking China gives you a false sense of security, use China to learn how to make your system secure in the first place instead but the is just my 2 cents hence my very personal opinion ;-))

    --
    Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    1. Re:Access to Zebra, Re:Blacklist 'em by jon3k · · Score: 1

      100% of my thousands of failed SSH attempts come from (Chinese) APNIC address space. I will humbly disagree with your conclusion that blocking the source of all attacks doesn't increase security. Like anything it's one layer of defense. When they start relaying it off American hosts then we'll come up with a Plan B, which will most likely be cutting off the relays, since ARIN and US companies within US jurisdiction are a little easier to work with :)

    2. Re:Access to Zebra, Re:Blacklist 'em by ls671 · · Score: 1

      > 100% of my thousands of failed SSH attempts come from
      > (Chinese) APNIC address space

      I call bs on this and I have logs and automated complaint reports to prove it. Also, I have other additional means to deal with this issue.

      There are compromised machines on every network, most of these attempts are done by botnets without the knowledge of the IP owner as I found exchanging with remote network admins. ! ;-))

      Here is one report, I edited out my own IP for obvious reasons.

      Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:27:10 -0400
      To: noc@psychz.net
      Subject: Report of abuse from one of your IP: 74.117.63.155

      Hello,

      An IP from your network is scanning one of our machine
      Culprit IP on YOUR network: 74.117.63.155
      Victim IP on OUR network: XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX

      Here is the data used to file this abuse report:

      % This is the CyberAbuse Whois v5.6

      [ Informations about 74.117.63.155 ]

      IP range : 74.117.56.0 - 74.117.63.255
      Network name : PSYCHZ-NETWORKS
      Infos : Psychz Networks
      Infos : 20687-2 Amar Rd. #312
      Infos : Walnut
      Infos : CA
      Infos : 91789
      Country : United States (US)
      Abuse E-mail : noc@psychz.net
      Source : ARIN

      % The CyberAbuse Whois
      % Copyright 2003-2008, Philippe Bourcier
      % http://www.cyberabuse.org/whois/

      Here is our log file, note that timestamps are AMERICA/NEW YORK time:

      74.117.63.155 count: 25 /var/log/messages:Apr 13 15:11:35 java14 sshd[8147]: reverse mapping checking getaddrinfo for unassigned.psychz.net [74.117.63.155] failed - POSSIBLE BREAK-IN ATTEMPT! /var/log/messages:Apr 13 15:11:35 java14 sshd[8147]: Failed password for root from 74.117.63.155 port 47731 ssh2 /var/log/messages:Apr 13 15:11:36 java14 sshd[8149]: reverse mapping checking getaddrinfo for unassigned.psychz.net [74.117.63.155] failed - POSSIBLE BREAK-IN ATTEMPT! /var/log/messages:Apr 13 15:11:36 java14 sshd[8149]: Failed password for root from 74.117.63.155 port 48844 ssh2 /var/log/messages:Apr 13 15:11:37 java14 sshd[8151]: reverse mapping checking getaddrinfo for unassigned.psychz.net [74.117.63.155] failed - POSSIBLE BREAK-IN ATTEMPT! /var/log/messages:Apr 13 15:11:37 java14 sshd[8151]: Failed password for root from 74.117.63.155 port 49625 ssh2 /var/log/messages:Apr 13 15:11:38 java14 sshd[8153]: reverse mapping checking getaddrinfo for unassigned.psychz.net [74.117.63.155] failed - POSSIBLE BREAK-IN ATTEMPT! /var/log/messages:Apr 13 15:11:38 java14 sshd[8153]: Failed password for root from 74.117.63.155 port 50247 ssh2 /var/log/messages:Apr 13 15:11:39 java14 sshd[8155]: reverse mapping checking getaddrinfo for unassigned.psychz.net [74.117.63.155] failed - POSSIBLE BREAK-IN ATTEMPT! /var/log/messages:Apr 13 15:11:39 java14 sshd[8155]: Failed password for root from 74.117.63.155 port 50815 ssh2 /var/log/messages:Apr 13 15:11:41 java14 sshd[8157]: reverse mapping checking getaddrinfo for unassigned.psychz.net [74.117.63.155] failed - POSSIBLE BREAK-IN ATTEMPT! /var/log/messages:Apr 13 15:11:41 java14 sshd[8157]: Failed password for root from 74.117.63.155 port 51462 ssh2 /var/log/messages:Apr 13 15:11:43 java14 sshd[8159]: reverse mapping checking getaddrinfo for unassigned.psychz.net [74.117.63.155] failed - POSSIBLE BREAK-IN ATTEMPT! /var/log/messages:Apr 13 15:11:43 java14 sshd[8159]: Failed password for root from 74.117.63.155 port 52055 ssh2 /var/log/messages:Apr 13 15:11:43 java14 sshd[8161]: reverse mapping checking getaddrinfo for unassigned.psychz.net [74.117.63.155] failed - POSSIBLE BREAK-IN ATTEMPT! /var/log/messages:

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
  39. Slashdot hit by China... by ls671 · · Score: 1

    It seems like Slashdot has been hit hit by China.

    If I try:

    http://slashdot.org/firehose

    or

    http://slashdot.org/~ls671/

    I have been getting this for the past half hour:

    Error 503 Service Unavailable
    Service Unavailable
    Guru Meditation:
    XID: 147127282289
    Varnish

    --
    Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
  40. I have a copy of Wikipedia... I'm ready by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't wait until the whole Internet goes belly up and I don't have to pay my mortgage anymore. I have a copy of Wikipedia, is all what I need to live in a world without internet.

  41. Re:Blacklist 'em all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And since a lot of spam comes from both Russia and from the US, I'll block them, too. Oh, wait a minute...

  42. Stop the insanity China and smarten up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop the insanity China and smarten up...
    We know why your doing this for, so listen up (since this is traffic is being directed to you). Do not tell us that our China ISP accidentally sent routing information, you know what you were doing, it is wrong. If you did do it by accident, than your China ISP (China Government) must be the most retarded operators or tell the truth that you want to spy for information. Either way, the rest of the world should block you and hold you responsible for your actions or use this against you for bargain (China Government - self centered freaks). I put that last part so your (China's) scanners pick this up and read it.

  43. Re:Why the FUCK does china still have internet acc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Racist garbage spoken like a true uninformed dickhead. Meanwhile crap like this continues to get modded up on slashdot. I'm tied of seeing almost daily china threads started on /. accompanied by racist or boarderline racist rants in the threads.

  44. Re:Why the FUCK does china still have internet acc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Step 8: Profit!

  45. Re:cut'em loose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's stupifying that the first post anons, when they dont talk about frosty piss, get it so right and still get modded down. /., pc less. it'll just be your and our death.

  46. This is a Test ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... it is only a Test.

    Apparently when they finally attack, it will be devastating.

  47. This is SubtleAttack (2) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SubtleAttack (1) was the ship that "ran aground" in an Australia coral reef,
    traveling Km's off the normal shipping route.

    Are any -other- SubtleAttacks being reported, around the world, folks...?

  48. Re:cut'em loose by Wakko+Warner · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I'd mod you up if I could.

    We need to just cut their fucking cables until they figure out how to use the goddamned Internet responsibly.

    --
    "Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
  49. Mozzila is better by danielgrooth · · Score: 1

    I would advise anyone using IE to change to Firefox or Opera anyway, as IE is generally insecure. Just about any other browser is safer to use than IE. http://www.articlesbase.com/health-articles/cho-yung-tea-review-amp-free-trial-2124982.html

  50. Thank $deity for signed prefix announcements by RichiH · · Score: 1

    RIPE is pushing to have all route announcements signed by 1.1.11 and the other four RIRs are following suit. Personally, I can't wait for this to happen :)

    1. Re:Thank $deity for signed prefix announcements by jon3k · · Score: 1

      I don't see how signing announcements stops this from happening? All that would do is make it (nearly) impossible to forge announcements. That's not and hasn't ever been a problem that I'm aware of. We know where the bad routes are coming from.

    2. Re:Thank $deity for signed prefix announcements by RichiH · · Score: 1

      You know where they are coming from, but it seems the tier 1 & 2 ISPs are not willing to filter incoming routes from China. With signed announcements, they would have something to filter on.
      While that won't help if they just strip all intermediary AS numbers out of the routes (unless upstreams are also verified, at some point), it will still improve the overall situation.

  51. The evil, evil Chinese ... by jandersen · · Score: 0

    This is of course "malice aforethought", since it involves Chinese people in some way; if it had been an American ISP, then they were just unlucky, as we all know.

    The Chinese aside, though, how can it be that malformed packages of any sort can just propagate? Don't the others have a natural duty to check things out a bit before they just swallow a wagonload of shite?

    1. Re:The evil, evil Chinese ... by jon3k · · Score: 1

      Well based on the preponderance of evidence (billions of attacks on systems exclusively from Chinese address space) it makes it harder to believe this isn't malicious.

  52. Re:Fat Chance that IPv6 actually fixes this proble by Phantom+Gremlin · · Score: 1

    Hi Bill,

    The really really sad thing about your comments is all of them could have easily been predicted long before there was anything like IPv6. E.g. of course businesses will want to own their own addess space. Duh!

    How could IPv6 ever have been proposed without having clear responses to those objections? Did they think they could arbitrarily dictate this stuff, and that everyone would simply acquiesce?

  53. Re:Why the FUCK does china still have internet acc by jon3k · · Score: 1

    What the fuck in his post is racist?

    I'm tired of seeing almost daily china threads started on /. and accompanied by some idiot claiming they're racist somehow.