It appears that J. Hellenthal via NANOG said:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>Maybe the site "has/had" a shopping cart infection at one point that has been
>found and eradicated at one point ?
Virustotal reported it four days ago, which suggests that whatever was
wrong with it is still wrong with it,
The usual
According to Bryan Fields :
>On 10/25/23 4:58 PM, Compton, Rich A wrote:
>> Charter uses threat intel from Akamai to block certain "malicious" domains.
>
>Does charter do this on signed domains too?
Of course.
If you want to run your own DNSSEC resolver and bypass their malware
protection, you ar
and I get how that could be. We had a design. Gave the prints to the
contractors. Someone internally verified the contractors built what was on the
prints. A year or two goes by and some laterals ended up costing more because
handholes on the prints were never built. Our locator goes to a handho
On 10/27/23 7:49 AM, John Levine wrote:
But for obvious good reasons,
the vast majority of their customers don't
I'd argue that as a service provider deliberately messing with DNS is an
obvious bad thing. They're there to deliver packets.
--
Bryan Fields
727-409-1194 - Voice
http://bryanfie
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Global
IPv4 Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, SAFNOG
UKNOF, TZNOG, MENOG, BJNOG, SDNOG, CMNOG, LACNOG and the RIPE Routing WG.
Daily listings are sent to bg
It appears that Bryan Fields said:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>On 10/27/23 7:49 AM, John Levine wrote:
>> But for obvious good reasons,
>> the vast majority of their customers don't
>
>I'd argue that as a service provider deliberately messing with DNS is an
>obvious bad thing. They're there to de
another old dog doing a search wrote to tell me they really appreciated
that i still had some antique advice up. i had long forgotten this one.
but found it amusing and still more relevant than i might wish.
https://psg.com/emily.html
randy
clarinet !!
wish this was included with every subscription to internet services
-J
On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 5:50 PM Randy Bush wrote:
> another old dog doing a search wrote to tell me they really appreciated
> that i still had some antique advice up. i had long forgotten this one.
> but
> On Oct 27, 2023, at 14:20, John Levine wrote:
>
> It appears that Bryan Fields said:
>> -=-=-=-=-=-
>> -=-=-=-=-=-
>> On 10/27/23 7:49 AM, John Levine wrote:
>>> But for obvious good reasons,
>>> the vast majority of their customers don't
>>
>> I'd argue that as a service provider delibera
On 10/27/23 2:20 PM, John Levine wrote:
It appears that Bryan Fields said:
-=-=-=-=-=-
-=-=-=-=-=-
On 10/27/23 7:49 AM, John Levine wrote:
But for obvious good reasons,
the vast majority of their customers don't
I'd argue that as a service provider deliberately messing with DNS is an
obviou
> wish this was included with every subscription to internet services
>
you did not get it with your AOL CD? ask for a refund.
as a bonus, https://neal.fun/internet-artifacts/
randy
When you have a sufficiently large mass of non-technical end users,
inevitably some percentage of them will end up doing something like
enabling WAN-interface-facing remote admin access,which then gets pwned and
turned into a botnet. It's a real problem at scale. Compromised CPE routers
in addition
* Owen DeLong [Sat 28 Oct 2023, 01:00 CEST]:
If it’s such a reasonable default, why don’t any of the public
resolvers (e.g. 1.1.1.1, 8.8.8.8, 9.9.9.9, etc.) do so?
It's generally a service that's offered for money. Quad9 definitely
offer it: https://www.quad9.net/service/threat-blocking
DN
>> DNS isn’t the right place to attack this, IMHO.
>
> Why not (apart from a purity argument), and where should it happen instead?
> As others pointed out, network operators have a vested interest in protecting
> their customers from becoming victims to malware.
Takedowns of the hostile target
14 matches
Mail list logo
