nanog mailing list archives
Re: BGP Experiment
From: Randy Bush <randy () psg com>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2019 15:37:58 -0800
I think a better question is, once a vulnerability has become widespread public knowledge, do you expect malicious actors, malware authors and intelligence agencies of autocratic nation-states to obey a gentlemens' agreement not to exploit something?
false anology, or maybe just a subject switch. the 'attacker' was not a nation state nor intentionally malicious. it was a naïve researcher meaning no harm. in fact, i have co-authored with ítalo, and he is a very well meaning, and usually cautious, researcher. he just fell in with a crew with a rep for ops cluelessness that needed to demonstrate it once again. to nick's point. as nick knows, i am a naggumite; one of my few disagreements with dr postel. but there is a difference between writing protocol specs/code, and with sending packets on the global internet. rigor in the former, prudence in the latter. while it is tragicaly true that someone will be willing to load mrs schächter on the cattle car, it damned well ain't gonna be me. randy
Current thread:
- Re: BGP Experiment, (continued)
- Re: BGP Experiment Randy via NANOG (Jan 25)
- Re: BGP Experiment Mark Tees (Jan 25)
- Re: BGP Experiment Mark Tees (Jan 25)
- Re: BGP Experiment Randy Bush (Jan 26)
- Re: BGP Experiment Owen DeLong (Jan 26)
- Re: BGP Experiment valdis . kletnieks (Jan 26)
- Re: BGP Experiment Owen DeLong (Jan 26)
- Re: BGP Experiment Randy Bush (Jan 26)
- Re: BGP Experiment Eric Kuhnke (Jan 26)
- Re: BGP Experiment Nick Hilliard (Jan 26)
- Re: BGP Experiment Randy Bush (Jan 26)
- Re: BGP Experiment William Allen Simpson (Jan 27)
- [2019/01/27] Re: BGP Experiment Hansen, Christoffer (Jan 27)
- Re: BGP Experiment Randy Bush (Jan 27)
- Re: BGP Experiment Nick Hilliard (Jan 27)
- Re: BGP Experiment Brian Kantor (Jan 28)