On Oct 22, 2010, at 11:04 37AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 1:46 AM, George Bonser wrote:
>> An agreement signed this month with the Department of Homeland Security
>> and an earlier initiative to protect companies in the defense industrial
>> base make it likely that the
On Nov 10, 2010, at 12:40 56PM, George Bonser wrote:
>> From: Steve Meuse > Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 9:31 AM
>> To: Michael Loftis
>> Cc: nanog
>> Subject: Re: Current trends in capacity planning and oversubscription
>>
>> Michael Loftis expunged (mlof...@wgops.com):
>>>
>>> Actually.
On Nov 22, 2010, at 2:52 52PM, Greg Whynott wrote:
>
> i was pinging a host from a windows machine and made a typo which seemed
> harmless. the end result was it interpreted my input differently than what I
> had intended. thinking this was a m$ issue I quickly took the opportunity
> to po
On Dec 1, 2010, at 8:18 42PM, David Conrad wrote:
> On Dec 1, 2010, at 11:41 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> the more i think about this, the more i am inclined to consider a second
>> trusted root not (easily) attackable by the usg, who owns the root now,
>> or the acta vigilantes. as dissent becomes
On Dec 2, 2010, at 3:54 15PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Ingo Flaschberger"
>>
>> in europe GFIs are always needed for prection and by law.
>> to avoid the cascading effects the GFCIs are better.
>> break current ranges from 10mA (bath) up to 300mA; for servers
On Dec 4, 2010, at 1:43 09AM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
>> From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
>>> From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
>> Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 20:00:15 -0500
>>
>> On Fri, 03 Dec 2010 14:24:16 PST, Leo Bicknell said:
>>
>>> It is speculated that no later than Q1, two more /8's will be allocate
Well -- spammers are following the NANOG list in real-time, it seems. A few
hours after my post this afternoon, I received some spam with a correct
Subject: line for that post. I'll be happy to forward the email to anyone who
wants to analyze it or find the offender and permanently blacklist "
Yup, same purported sender...
On Dec 7, 2010, at 6:46 40PM, Joe Greco wrote:
>> Well -- spammers are following the NANOG list in real-time, it seems. A =
>> few hours after my post this afternoon, I received some spam with a =
>> correct Subject: line for that post. I'll be happy to forward th
On Dec 20, 2010, at 8:51 01PM, JC Dill wrote:
> On 20/12/10 2:15 PM, David Sparro wrote:
>>
>>
>> There is no monopoly. They've already experimented with that and
>> (apparently) decided that it wasn't worth it.
>>
>> http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/ptech/stories/DN-verizon_1
On Jan 1, 2011, at 11:33 24PM, Mark Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Jan 2011 20:59:16 -0700
> Brielle Bruns wrote:
>
>> On 1/1/11 8:33 PM, Graham Wooden wrote:
>>> So here is the interesting part... Both servers are HP Proliant DL380 G4s,
>>> and both of their NIC1 and NIC2 MACs addresses are exactl
I should note -- this isn't that surprising. The IPv6 stateless autoconfig
RFCs have always assumed that this could happen, which is why duplicate
address detection is mandatory.
On Jan 2, 2011, at 5:15 54PM, Mark Smith wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, 2 Jan 2011 08:50:42 -0500
> Steven Bellovin wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jan 1, 2011, at 11:33 24PM, Mark Smith wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 01 Jan 2011 20:59:16 -0700
>>> Brielle Bruns wrot
On Jan 3, 2011, at 1:04 55PM, Ken Chase wrote:
> I have two independent mailservers, and two other customers that run their own
> servers, all largely unrelated infrastructures and target domains, suddenly
> experiencing low levels of spam.
>
> Total emails/day dropping from some 175,000-250,000
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303870A1.pdf
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
On Jan 6, 2011, at 8:48 12PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Doesn't all of this become moot if Skype just develops a dual-stack capable
> client
> and servers?
Skype is an interesting case because of its peer-to-peer nature. Given the
state of v6 deployment and operational experience[1], and especially
On Jan 24, 2011, at 10:31 30PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 9:02 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
>>
>> On 2011-01-24, at 20:24, Danny McPherson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Beginning to wonder why, with work like DANE and certificates in DNS
>>> in the IETF, we need an RPKI and new hierarc
On Jan 27, 2011, at 4:53 22PM, mikea wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:26:58PM -0800, Mark Keymer wrote:
>> What I don't understand is I can only guess they must have a IT team.
>> And Maybe even 1 or more people that view this list. Why don't they just
>> talk to there own staff about the issu
On Jun 12, 2011, at 1:46 20PM, Jeff Kell wrote:
> On 6/12/2011 11:44 AM, Matthew Palmer wrote:
>> I don't believe we were talking about DHCPv6, we were talking about SLAAC.
>> And I *still* think it's a better idea for the client to be registering
>> itself in DNS; the host knows what domain(s) i
On Jun 20, 2011, at 5:52 27PM, John Levine wrote:
>> They have inquired about IPv6 already, but it's only gone so far as
>> that. I would gladly give them a /64 and be done with it, but my
>> concern is that they are going to want several /64 subnets for the
>> same reason and I don't really *th
On Jun 20, 2011, at 10:22 45PM, John R. Levine wrote:
>> All they need -- or, I suspect, need to assert -- is to have
>> multiple physical networks. They can claim a production net, a DMZ,
>> a management net, a back-end net for their databases, a developer
>> net, and no one would question an a
On Jun 29, 2011, at 8:59 49AM, Ryan Malayter wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 28, 3:35 pm, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>
>>
>> AFAIK, Verizon and all the other 4 largest mobile networks in the USA
>> have transparent TCP proxies in place.
>
> Do you have a reference for that information? Neither AT&T nor Spri
On Jul 26, 2011, at 11:07 37AM, Nate Burke wrote:
> Hello, I'm hoping that someone here might have run into a similar issue and
> might be able to offer me some pointers.
>
> I have a customer that I am providing redundant paths to, one link over a
> microwave connection, and a backup link ove
> The holy grail I'm searching for now? A GigE switch with POE,
> unmanaged is ok, and probably preferred from a price perspective;
> but with NO FAN.
I can't help with the POE part. I have a 16-port D-Link DGS-1016D
-- GigE, no fan, unmanaged.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.c
On Aug 12, 2011, at 10:17 39PM, Joe Greco wrote:
>> What nobody wired their abode with fiber ?
>>
>> Am i the only one here
>
> I ran a bunch of fiber from the telco rack to the server rack to reduce
> the risk of damage to expensive servers ... it's likely to be
> meaningless but it is just a
On Aug 15, 2011, at 10:12 21AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> I've always wondered if the next cisco/juniper 0 day will be delivered
>> via a set of exploits delivered via a link posted to NANOG. :) Maybe
>> I'll do a talk at DEFCON next year about that.
>
> more likely a 'shortened' url. how anyone can
On Aug 24, 2011, at 9:44 20AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> On Aug 24, 2011, at 8:55 AM, JC Dill wrote:
>> On 23/08/11 3:13 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>>> A. Our structures aren't built to seismic zone standards. Our
>>> construction workers aren't familiar with*how* to build to seismic
>>> zone
On Oct 15, 2011, at 11:20 58PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Rodney Joffe"
>
>> Subject: 13 years ago today - October 16, 1998...
>> we lost Jon.
>>
>> It feels like just yesterday.
>>
>> http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2468.html
>
> My path didn't cross Jon's
On Oct 31, 2011, at 12:30 49PM, Joel jaeggli wrote:
> On 10/31/11 03:43 , Jeroen Massar wrote:
>> On 2011-10-31 08:56 , Dmitry Cherkasov wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Please advice what is the best practice to use IPv6 address block
>>> across distributed locations.
>>
>> You go to multiple RIRs an
Here's a quote from a famous court case (T.J. Hooper) on liability and industry
standards:
Indeed in most cases reasonable prudence is in face common prudence; but
strictly it is never its measure; a whole calling may have unduly lagged
in the adoption of new and available devices. It
On Nov 21, 2011, at 4:30 PM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
>>
>>
> Probably nowhere near that sophisticated. More like somebody owned the PC
> running Windows 98 being used as an operator interface to the control system.
> Then they started poking buttons on the pretty screen.
>
> Somewhere there
On Nov 22, 2011, at 7:51 59PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 13:32:23 -1000, Michael Painter said:
>
>>> http://jeffreycarr.blogspot.com/2011/11/latest-fbi-statement-on-alleged.html
>
>> And "In addition, DHS and FBI have concluded that there was no malicious
>> traffic
On Nov 22, 2011, at 8:08 58PM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
>
> On Nov 22, 2011, at 7:51 59PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 13:32:23 -1000, Michael Painter said:
>>
>>>> http://jeffreycarr.blogspot.com/2011/11/latest-fbi-statement-on-alle
On Nov 28, 2011, at 4:51 52PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Nov 28, 2011, at 7:29 AM, Ray Soucy wrote:
>
>> It's a good practice to reserve a 64-bit prefix for each network.
>> That's a good general rule. For point to point or link networks you
>> can use something as small as a 126-bit prefix (w
>
>
> F*ck them! If anyone knows a great copyright attorney in the U.S.,
> please send me the details or ask them to get in touch with me.
Hmm -- did you say "copyright"? I wonder what would happen if you sent
them a DMCA takedown notice. To quote Salvor Hardin, "It's a poor atom
blaster th
On Dec 6, 2011, at 12:34 31PM, William Allen Simpson wrote:
> On 12/6/11 12:00 PM, Eric Tykwinski wrote:
>> Maybe it's just me, but I would think that simply getting them listed on
>> stopbadware.org and other similar sites would probably have much more of an
>> effect.
>> The bad publicity can c
On Jan 2, 2013, at 7:53 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 19:25:04 -0600, Jimmy Hess said:
>
>> I would say those claiming certificates from a public CA provide no
>> assurance of authentication of server identity greater than that of a
>> self-signed one would have the bu
On Jan 2, 2013, at 7:15 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> Do you run Cert Patrol (a Firefox extension) in your browser?
>
> yes, but my main browser is chrome (ff does poorly with nine windows and
> 60+ tabs). there is some sort of pinning, or at least discussion of it.
> but it is not clear what is ac
On Jan 2, 2013, at 8:25 PM, Seth David Schoen wrote:
> Steven Bellovin writes:
>
>> The only Chrome browser I have lying around right now is on a Nexus 7 tablet;
>> I don't see any way to list the pinned certs from the browser. There is a
>> list at http://ww
On Jan 3, 2013, at 3:52 PM, Matthias Leisi wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:59 AM, Damian Menscher wrote:
>
>
>> While I'm writing, I'll also point out that the Diginotar hack which came
>> up in this discussion as an example of why CAs can't be trusted was
>> discovered due to a feature of
On Jan 9, 2013, at 1:18 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> In a message written on Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 06:39:28PM +0100, Mikael
> Abrahamsson wrote:
>> IPMI is exactly what we're going for.
>
> For Vendors that use a "PC" motherboard, IPMI would probably not be
> difficult at all! :)
>
> I think IPMI
On Feb 20, 2013, at 3:20 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
> On 2/20/2013 1:05 PM, Jon Lewis wrote:
>>
>> See thread: nanog impossible circuit
>>
>> Even your leased lines can have packets copied off or injected into them,
>> apparently so easily it can be done by accident.
>>
>
> This is especially tr
On Feb 20, 2013, at 1:33 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:39:42 +0900, Randy Bush said:
>> boys and girls, all the cyber-capable countries are cyber-culpable. you
>> can bet that they are all snooping and attacking eachother, the united
>> states no less than the rest.
On Feb 20, 2013, at 9:07 PM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
>
> On Feb 20, 2013, at 1:33 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:39:42 +0900, Randy Bush said:
>>> boys and girls, all the cyber-capable countries are cyber-culpable. you
>>> can b
On Mar 8, 2013, at 2:30 PM, Philip Lavine wrote:
> Has anybody set up a Cellular front end (LTE or 3G) access to the Internet
> and a WiFi backend supporting 150 devices.
> I need to provide temporary Internet access (7 days) to a convention center
> room that is about 2000 square feet.
> Stoo
On Mar 15, 2013, at 9:38 AM, Ben Bartsch wrote:
> Is there actually any teeth to the law?
Find a real lawyer and show her/him
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2522
--Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
The BBC has a similar story:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21963100
On Mar 27, 2013, at 6:41 PM, Neil J. McRae wrote:
> Via renesys
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/egypt-naval-forces-capture-3-scuba-divers-trying-to-sabotage-undersea-internet-cable/2013/03/27/
DLT? I first heard it as a station wagon full of (9-track, 1600 bpi,
that having been the state of the art) mag tapes on the Taconic Parkway,
circa 1970. I suspect, though, that Herman Hollerith expressed the idea
about a stage coach full of punchcards, back in the 1880s.
On Apr 2, 2013, at 3:
On Apr 2, 2013, at 9:16 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Steven Bellovin"
>
>> DLT? I first heard it as a station wagon full of (9-track, 1600 bpi,
>> that having been the state of the art) mag tapes on the Taconic Parkway
On Apr 26, 2013, at 3:24 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> until widespread availability of webrtc, a bunch of us are using
>>> jitsi for video, https://jitsi.org/
>> And last I tried it, it kept segfaulting on something dumb ;)
>
> try the nightlies
>
I'm trying the latest two nightlies -- two annoy
On Dec 7, 2011, at 2:51 08PM, Meftah Tayeb wrote:
> big thank for that
> but, i am testing that for one day :)
Can you do an AStraceroute or manually translate those addresses into AS#s?
That is, might level3 and tinet be using multiple AS#s, in which case this
isn't unreasonable?
>
>
using Windows, I have no idea what's available.
On Dec 7, 2011, at 2:56 16PM, Meftah Tayeb wrote:
> please tel me how to ?
> i don't know astraceroute:)
>
> - Original Message - From: "Steven Bellovin"
> To: "Meftah Tayeb"
> Cc: "Fr
On Dec 22, 2011, at 7:04 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
> Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>> Does your Mom call you up every time she gets a dialog box complaining
>> about an invalid certificate ?
>> If she has been conditioned just to click "OK" when that happens, then
>> she probably can't.
>
> Everyone
On Dec 26, 2011, at 1:23 46PM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
> On 12/26/11 12:56 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 12:32:46 EST, Ray Soucy said:
>>> 2011/12/26 Masataka Ohta:
And, if RA is obsoleted, which is a point of discussion, there
is no reason to keep so bloated N
On Dec 29, 2011, at 5:30 16PM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>
>>> IGP snooping is not necessary if the host have only one next
>>> hop router.
>
>> You don't need an IGP either at that point, no matter what some paper from
>> years ago tries to assert. :)
>
> IGP is th
On Jan 1, 2012, at 8:34 PM, TR Shaw wrote:
> John,
>
> Unlike AH, ESP in transport mode does not provide integrity and
> authentication for the entire IP packet. However, in Tunnel Mode, where the
> entire original IP packet is encapsulated with a new packet header added,
> ESP protection
ons to deal with. This time there is some
> support for it ..
>
> Jack
>
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 7:20 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 1, 2012, at 8:34 PM, TR Shaw wrote:
>>
>>> John,
>>>
>>> Unlike AH, ESP in transport mode does no
On Jan 2, 2012, at 7:05 PM, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 22:32, Jimmy Hess wrote:
>
>> The sole root cause for "easily guessable passwords" is not lack of
>> technical restrictions. It's also: lazy or limited memory humans who need
>> passwords that they can remember.
On Jan 2, 2012, at 9:10 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
>> I just went through some calculations for a (government) site that has the
>> following rules:
> [...]
>> Under the plausible assumption that very many people will start with a string
>> of digits, continue with a string of lower-case letters
On Jan 3, 2012, at 8:09 19AM, Greg Ihnen wrote:
>
> On Jan 3, 2012, at 4:14 AM, Måns Nilsson wrote:
>
>> Subject: RE: AD and enforced password policies Date: Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at
>> 11:15:08PM + Quoting Blake T. Pfankuch (bl...@pfankuch.me):
>>
>>> However I would say 365 day expiration i
On Jan 5, 2012, at 2:16 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
>
> On Jan 5, 2012, at 10:42 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Eric J Esslinger
>> wrote:
>>> His response was there is legislation being pushed in both
>>> House and Senate that would require journalling for 2 or 5
>
On Jan 5, 2012, at 11:05 37PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> There's no shortage of stuff that reaches you 80..90 days after the fact
>
> The UK voluntary retention rules make a lot more sense, compared to "a
> few days", which is entirely impractical
>
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 9:30 AM, wro
On Jan 18, 2012, at 10:41 30AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> On 18/01/2012 14:18, Leigh Porter wrote:
>>> Yeah like I say, it wasn't my idea to put DNS behind firewalls. As long
>>> as it is not *my* firewalls I really don't care what they
On Jan 19, 2012, at 6:44 PM, ja...@smithwaysecurity.com wrote:
> You guys serous, when did the order come in to sezie the domain?
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/why-the-feds-smashed-megaupload.ars
has a good analysis; also see
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB100014240529
On Jan 19, 2012, at 10:07 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> I would agree. They've dotted every i and crossed every t here.
>
> This will inevitably be followed by a prosecution of some sort and/or
> there's also scope for Megaupload to sue the USG for restitution.
>
> It'll be interesting t
> If megaupload's corporate email was siezed to provide due diligence in
> such a prosecution - it would quite probably not constitute private
> mail
>
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
>>
>>
>>The Megaupload case is unusual, sa
On Jan 21, 2012, at 8:00 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Lyle Giese"
>
>> Not that I would not be a bit miffed if personal files disappeared, but
>> that's one of the risks associated with using a cloud service for file
>> storage. It could have been a fire, a v
On Jan 23, 2012, at 2:46 AM, Chris wrote:
> The appropriately named SS mainly deals with counterfeit currency,
> widespread ID theft (See also: Ryan1918) and threats to the President.
Actually, they have statutory authority to deal with computer crime,
too; see http://www.secretservice.gov/crimi
I received the enclosed note, apparently from RIPE (and the headers check out).
Why are you sending messages with clickable objects that I'm supposed to use to
change my password?
---
From: ripe_dbannou...@ripe.net
Subject: Advisory notice on passwords in the RIPE Database
Date: February 9, 2
If they're intended as a path to log in with a typed password, that's correct.
Sad, but correct.
On Feb 10, 2012, at 12:18 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
> So because of phishing, nobody should send messages with URLs in them?
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Ste
On Feb 10, 2012, at 12:29 30PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> So because of phishing, nobody should send messages with URLs in them?
>
> more and more these days, i have taken to not clicking the update messages,
> but going to the web site manyually to get it.
Yup -- I wrote about that a while back
(
On Feb 10, 2012, at 12:37 01PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> In a message written on Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 09:29:30AM -0800, Randy Bush
> wrote:
>> more and more these days, i have taken to not clicking the update messages,
>> but going to the web site manyually to get it.
>>
>> wy to much phishin
>
>
> Oh, and 'i' and 'l' need to be banned as well, because a san-serif uppercase I
> looks a lot like a san-serif lowercase l. (In fact, in the font I'm currently
> using,
> the two are pixel-identical).
>
> I don't see anybody calling for the banning of 'i' and 'l' in domain names
> due to
On Feb 18, 2012, at 6:51 PM, George Bonser wrote:
>> academics in ontario are gonna need a scalable vpn service until they
>> find jobs elsewhere.
>>
>> http://www.cautbulletin.ca/en_article.asp?SectionID=1386&SectionName=Ne
>> ws&VolID=336&VolumeName=No%202&VolumeStartDate=2/10/2012&EditionID=3
>
>
>> The timer for Linux is 5 minute by default but you can change it.
>
> Timer timeouts do not affect TCP MSS.
>
RFC 2923:
TCP should notice that the connection is timing out. After
several timeouts, TCP should attempt to send smaller packets,
perhaps turning off the DF
On Feb 20, 2012, at 10:27 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Steven Bellovin wrote:
>
>>> Timer timeouts do not affect TCP MSS.
>
>> RFC 2923:
>> TCP should notice that the connection is timing out. After
>> several timeouts, TCP should attempt to se
On Feb 24, 2012, at 7:46 40AM, Danny McPherson wrote:
>
> On Feb 23, 2012, at 10:42 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
>> the problem is that you have yet to rigorously define it and how to
>> unambiguously and rigorously detect it. lack of that will prevent
>> anyone from helping you prevent it.
>
> Yo
On Feb 24, 2012, at 2:26 14PM, Danny McPherson wrote:
>
> On Feb 24, 2012, at 1:10 PM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
>
>> But just because we can't solve the whole problem, does that
>> mean we shouldn't solve any of it?
>
> Nope, we most certainly should deco
On Feb 29, 2012, at 11:17 17AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Justin M. Streiner
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012, Rodrick Brown wrote:
>>
>>> There's about 1/2 a dozen or so known private and government research
>>> facilities on Antarctica and I'm surprised to see
On Apr 18, 2012, at 5:55 32PM, Douglas Otis wrote:
> On 4/18/12 12:35 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
>> Laurent GUERBY wrote:
>> > Do you have reference to recent papers with experimental data about
>> > non ECC memory errors? It should be fairly easy to do
>> Maybe this provides some information:
>>
On Apr 19, 2012, at 6:31 43PM, Douglas Otis wrote:
> On 4/18/12 8:09 PM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 18, 2012, at 5:55 32PM, Douglas Otis wrote:
>> > Dear Jeroen,
>> >
>> > In the work that led up to RFC3309, many of the errors found on the
&
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
On May 14, 2012, at 7:52 PM, Bill Stewart wrote:
>
> - Is there any application that can actually set the RFC3514 Evil Bit?
Code was added to FreeBSD to set it (though I think the commit was later
reverted); see the change logs at https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb/3514.html
--St
On Jul 2, 2012, at 11:47 AM, AP NANOG wrote:
> Do you happen to know all the kernels and versions affected by this?
>
>
See
http://landslidecoding.blogspot.com/2012/07/linuxs-leap-second-deadlocks.html
--Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
On Jul 2, 2012, at 3:43 PM, Greg D. Moore wrote:
> At 03:08 PM 7/2/2012, George Herbert wrote:
>
> If folks have not read it, I would suggest reading Normal Accidents by
> Charles Perrow.
Strong second to that suggestion.
--Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
On Jul 3, 2012, at 5:06 PM, Peter Lothberg wrote:
>
>
> On one of my BSD boxes. /usr/src/share/zoneinfo/leapseconds, I see no
> "-"
No, but they're allowed; see Figure 9 of RFC 5905:
LI Leap Indicator (leap): 2-bit integer warning of an impending leap
second to be inserted or deleted i
On Jul 5, 2012, at 10:49 48AM, Peter Lothberg wrote:
>>> On one of my BSD boxes. /usr/src/share/zoneinfo/leapseconds, I see no
>>> "-"
>> No, but they're allowed; see Figure 9 of RFC 5905:
>
> Steve,
>
> I commented that it was stated that we where doing both positive and
> negative correction
Hey!
New message, please read <http://baldrfilm.nl/mind.php?5f3>
Steven Bellovin
Hey!
New message, please read <http://bambooco.ru/ladies.php?5al>
Steven Bellovin
Hey!
New message, please read <http://maaike.info/could.php?b>
Steven Bellovin
Hey!
New message, please read <http://wbank.info/company.php?bc>
Steven Bellovin
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/07/ipmi/
Capsule summary: watch out!
--Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
There was an interesting paper at Usenix Security on the effects of deploying
DNSSEC; see
https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity13/measuring-practical-impact-dnssec-deployment
. The difference in geographical impact was quite striking.
--Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs
On Sep 26, 2013, at 11:07 AM, John Curran wrote:
> On Sep 26, 2013, at 4:52 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>
>> sounds just like folks in 1985, talking about IPv4...
>
> If there were ever were a need for an market/settlement model, it is with
> respect
> to routing table slots.
h
On Apr 7, 2010, at 11:03 16AM, Joe Greco wrote:
>> On Wednesday 07 April 2010 07:18:57 am Joe Greco wrote:
>>> To me, this is a Dilbert-class engineering failure. I would imagine that
>>> if you could implement a hub on the network card, the same chip(s) would
>>> work in an external tin can wit
On Apr 7, 2010, at 4:28 32PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:14 PM, Steve Bertrand wrote:
>
> [ snip ]
>
>
>>
>> For instance, I like to present myself as a 'network engineer'. I have
>> never taken formal education, don't hold any certifications (well, since
>> 2001), a
On Apr 8, 2010, at 6:39 45PM, Michael Dillon wrote:
>> I guarantee you the Communications Committee is on the job. What's more,
>> they are doing a GREAT job - for no money and apparently no gratitude. It
>> is worse than thankless, no matter what they do they will be derided.
>> Filter som
On Apr 19, 2010, at 1:22 31PM, Bryan Fields wrote:
> On 4/19/2010 10:14, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
>> The eyeball ISPs will find it trivial to NAT should they ever need to do
>> so however, something servers cannot do - you are looking at numbers,
>> not operational considerations.
>
> LSN is no
>
>
> - many ISPs, especially cable modem, have annoying policies that say
> you can't run a server at home. But many don't.
Right. Often, this is due to a combination of technology limitations -- with
DSL, upstream and downstream bandwidths are tradeoffs; with cable modems,
limited upstream
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/05/08/business/AP-US-TEC-Fragile-Internet.html
It's a pretty reasonable article, too, though I don't know that I agree about
the "simplicity of the routing system"
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
On May 9, 2010, at 12:30 47PM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Sun, May 09, 2010 at 10:54:46AM -0500, Larry Sheldon wrote:
>
>> And when I drive someplace, I do indeed go by the signs I see, which are
>> not erected by a central authority, as I move along. (I don't have a
>> route from here to Fairbank
1 - 100 of 224 matches
Mail list logo
