Re: [SECURITY] Application layer attacks/DDoS attacks

[Steve via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>]

Application layer DDoS attacks , in most (all?) cases require a valid TCP/IP connection, therefore are not spoofed and 
BCP38 is irrelevant 

Sent from Steve's iPhone 

> On May 25, 2015, at 8:00 AM, nanog-request () nanog org wrote:
>
> Send NANOG mailing list submissions to
>    nanog () nanog org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>    http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>    nanog-request () nanog org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>    nanog-owner () nanog org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of NANOG digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: [SECURITY] Application layer attacks/DDoS attacks
>      (Christopher Morrow)
>   2. Re: [SECURITY] Application layer attacks/DDoS attacks
>      (Ramy Hashish)
>   3. Re: [SECURITY] Application layer attacks/DDoS attacks (Randy Bush)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 24 May 2015 23:01:50 -0400
> From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists () gmail com>
> To: jim deleskie <deleskie () gmail com>
> Cc: Ramy Hashish <ramy.ihashish () gmail com>, NANOG list
>    <nanog () nanog org>
> Subject: Re: [SECURITY] Application layer attacks/DDoS attacks
> Message-ID:
>    <CAL9jLaYf7v-NG_1qGEHtHhASOD6Vea5VJCSJcWhS29GPcRuzPg () mail gmail com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 9:12 PM, jim deleskie <deleskie () gmail com> wrote:
> > > However, the trusted network initiative might be a good approach to start
> > > influencing operators to apply anti-spoofing mechanisms.
>
> explain how you think the 'trusted network initiative' matters in the slightest?
>
> -chris
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 06:48:41 +0200
> From: Ramy Hashish <ramy.ihashish () gmail com>
> To: morrowc.lists () gmail com, nanog () nanog org
> Subject: Re: [SECURITY] Application layer attacks/DDoS attacks
> Message-ID:
>    <CAOLsBOt_SOwHLZVRgb31nMMX5isiS8rkXojUpP9NyNVU05Dw9w () mail gmail com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> The idea of restricting access to a certain content during an attack on the
> "trusted networks" only will make all interested ISPs be more "trusted"
>
> Ramy
>
> On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 5:01 AM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists () gmail com
> > wrote:
>
> > On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 9:12 PM, jim deleskie <deleskie () gmail com> wrote:
> > > > However, the trusted network initiative might be a good approach to
> > start
> > > > influencing operators to apply anti-spoofing mechanisms.
> >
> > explain how you think the 'trusted network initiative' matters in the
> > slightest?
> >
> > -chris
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 15:18:43 +0900
> From: Randy Bush <randy () psg com>
> To: Ramy Hashish <ramy.ihashish () gmail com>
> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog () nanog org>
> Subject: Re: [SECURITY] Application layer attacks/DDoS attacks
> Message-ID: <m2r3q5b2nw.wl%randy () psg com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> > The idea of restricting access to a certain content during an attack
> > on the "trusted networks" only will make all interested ISPs be more
> > "trusted"
>
> don't the lawyers already have enough money?
>
>
> End of NANOG Digest, Vol 88, Issue 25
> *************************************