FYI
Original Message
Subject: IPv6 host scanning in IPv6
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 03:57:48 -0300
From: Fernando Gont
Organization: SI6 Networks
To: IPv6 Hackers Mailing List
Folks,
We've just published an IETF internet-draft about IPv6 host scanning
attacks.
The aforementioned
It would be a very fast dictionary attack :D
accede
bade
dad
decade
face
axed
babe
deaf
bed
Abe
bee
Decca
exec
fade
bead
bedded
deed
exceed
Abba
deface
efface
feed
On 20 April 2012 09:08, Fernando Gont wrote:
> FYI
>
> Original Message
> Subject: IPv6 host scanning in IPv6
> D
Colleagues:
On behalf of the North American Network Operators' Group (NANOG) and the
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN), we would like to take this
opportunity to draw your attention to the 2012 Postel Network Operator's
Scholarship.
The Postel Network Operator's Scholarship targets pe
On 04/20/2012 08:17 AM, Tei wrote:
It would be a very fast dictionary attack :D
accede
bade
dad
decade
face
axed
babe
deaf
bed
Abe
bee
Decca
exec
fade
bead
bedded
deed
exceed
Abba
deface
efface
feed
On 20 April 2012 09:08, Fernando Gont wrote:
FYI
Original Message
Subject:
>>
> exec ?
> exceed ?
>
Not a lot of x's in hexidecimal numbers outside of C-style formatting (0x).
IPv6 addresses are not generally notated in said style and certainly don't
include said x in a suitable context for that to be part of a dictionary attack.
However, he also left out the co
Interesting, I wasn't aware of that - thanks for the heads up! I knew
Telx, 60 Hudson Street was consider to be an alternative to TH 25B at the time
(approx 24 months ago), as mentioned by a few others in this thread.
Kind regards,
P.
-Original Message-
From: vinny_abe...@dell.com [v
Hi,
Thanks a lot for all your inputs and feedback.
My goal is to peer with a lot of networks especially ISPs. We are mainly
a content provider. Tlex and Equinix seem to be the obvioius choice for
a neutral colocation facility. According to your experience, between 60
Hudson and 111 8th Avenue,
On 04/20/2012 12:39 PM, Abdelkader Chikh Daho wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks a lot for all your inputs and feedback.
> My goal is to peer with a lot of networks especially ISPs. We are mainly
> a content provider. Tlex and Equinix seem to be the obvioius choice for
> a neutral colocation facility. Accord
111 8th Avenue is probably your best choice for straight-up Internet
peering and transit. However, this largely depends on your traffic. If
you do a lot of long distance voice, for example, 60 Hudson can be a
better choice. There is also a good amount of peering at 165 Halsey in
NJ, right across t
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, LacNOG,
TRNOG, CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing Working Group.
Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.ap
Is anyone else seeing this? DC - DFW back to DC? AFAIK, Verizon-GNI is a
customer of L3, so no weird peering issues should be afoot. This adds
about 40ms to the R/T time. The path leaving Verizon-GNI (FIOS) goes
(seemingly) DC-DC and has lower times (<5ms) unidirectionally.
Tracing the rout
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Deepak Jain wrote:
>
> Is anyone else seeing this? DC - DFW back to DC? AFAIK, Verizon-GNI is a
why would GNI still be a customer 5 yrs on after GNI bought a transit
provider with worldwide reach? (uunet's network)
> Original Message
> From: Fernando Gont
> We've just published an IETF internet-draft about IPv6 host scanning
> attacks.
--- oscar.vi...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Tei
It would be a very fast dictionary attack :D
accede
bade
feed
BGP Update Report
Interval: 12-Apr-12 -to- 19-Apr-12 (7 days)
Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072
TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS
Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name
1 - AS840252684 3.3% 31.4 -- CORBINA-AS OJSC "Vimpelcom"
2 - AS982939059 2.5
This report has been generated at Fri Apr 20 21:12:51 2012 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org for a current version of this report.
Recent Table History
Date
Also see https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb/papers/v6worms.pdf
(Worm propagation strategies in an IPv6 Internet. ;login:,
pages 70-76, February 2006.)
On Apr 20, 2012, at 3:08 50AM, Fernando Gont wrote:
> FYI
>
> Original Message
> Subject: IPv6 host scanning in IPv6
> Date: Fri
For certain definitions of "host scanning" it is possible to achieve
some level of that in IPv6.
But massively far less efficient and far more limited than the brute
force option that is available in IPv4.
The mathematical argument in the draft doesn't really work, because
it's too focused on t
Hi, Jimmy,
On 04/20/2012 09:22 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> The mathematical argument in the draft doesn't really work, because
> it's too focused on there being "one specific site" that can be
> scanned.
Not sure what you mean. Clearly, in the IPv6 world you'd target specific
networks.
How could
18 matches
Mail list logo
