Re: Recent Attacks

From: Crispin Cowan (crispinat_private)
Date: Thu Feb 24 2000 - 14:55:39 PST

  • Next message: daN.: "Re: Recent Attacks"

    "Paul D. Robertson" wrote:
    
    > On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Crispin Cowan wrote:
    > > > Long-term there are plenty of ways to protect from DDoS attacks, and some
    > > > of them will even work.  It's the short- to mid-term that's the problem.
    > > > However, I still think that trying to call network scanners akin
    > > > to munitions when VCL isn't is lopsided.  Then again, I think the idiot
    > > > who put a programming language into a word processor should be shot.
    > >
    > > What long term methods would those be?  I have yet to hear a convincing proposal
    
    I'll pick on these piece-wise, to see if we can reduce to a convincing solution.
    
    
    > Out-of-band control channels,
    
    This doesn't defend against DDoS attacks that are data requests instead of control
    packets.
    
    
    > end-to-end QoS,
    
    Also won't stop attackers from flooding your pipe with requests.  In fact, it may
    make it worse, as the attackers could spoof data requests that result in QoS
    bandwidth allocations to spoofed clients, further choking the server's bandwidth.
    QoS will have to be carefully tied to authentication, or else it just makes DDoS much
    worse.
    
    
    > traffic flow-based routing/flood control protocols,
    
    I don't think I understand this proposal.
    
    
    > authenticated gatewaying and/or redirection, authenticated routing,
    
    All the authentication schemes have two problems:
    
       * you need a global PKI that works for everyone, which is, er, problematic :-)
       * it does not stop an attacker from flooding a machine with packets that fail
         authentication.  Authenicated routing moves the probelm up-stream, which only
         helps somewhat
    
    > slow-start egress routing,
    
    This needs to be globally deployed to be effective.  It is more or less equivalent to
    saying "secure all Internet nodes", because the attacker could compromise an inside
    node, and use it to change the egress filtering policy.
    
    > upstream artificial clocking,
    
    I don't understand this proposal.
    
    So of the proposed solutions, I see some that won't work, some that will mitigate the
    solution but not solve it, and some that I don't understand (my bad).  I have not yet
    seen a complete solution that I understand.  The "I don't understand" ones are
    largely lack of familiarity; I haven't read the proposals that Paul is referring to.
    
    Crispin
    -----
    Crispin Cowan, CTO, WireX Communications, Inc.    http://wirex.com
    Free Hardened Linux Distribution:                 http://immunix.org
                      JOBS!  http://immunix.org/jobs.html
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Apr 13 2001 - 14:08:04 PDT