Re: SNMP Scans 02/17/02

From: Eric Brandwine (ericbat_private)
Date: Wed Feb 20 2002 - 17:15:28 PST

  • Next message: Mike Shaw: "Re: ckcool?"

    >>>>> "sc" == Security Coordinator <securityat_private> writes:
    
    >> Do you think we should be reporting snmp scans to ISPs
    >> or just a waste of time?
    
    sc> Well, one way or another ISPs need to be fingered. I don't see
    sc> other people in the security community saying much, so maybe its
    sc> time someone started.  ISPs ARE RESPONSIBLE for a lot of the
    sc> security problems on the net today. How could someone do SNMP
    sc> scans of a network unless ISPs let them get away with it? Actually
    sc> this is a bad example, there is legitimate SNMP traffic and it
    sc> would be hard for them to know, but then why is it we see so many
    sc> spoofed packets around? There should be ZERO of them on the
    sc> net. Every router knows what addresses to expect to be inside vs
    sc> outside.
    
    sc> I won't belabour the point, but YES, you should not just report it
    sc> to the ISP, you should let everyone know where attacks come
    sc> from. What we REALLY need is a database and system good enough to
    sc> understand the topology of the net and processes attack reports in
    sc> a sophisticated enough way that we can say things like "if this
    sc> router was filtering like thus, this would be impossible" and if
    sc> an ISP won't configure their equipment properly, then they can be
    sc> held liable.
    
    Please get a clue.  They're free.
    
    We sell bandwidth.  We sell unfiltered bandwidth.  There are good
    reasons for doing so, and I'm willing to discuss them with you in
    another forum, perhaps off list.
    
    I am not responsible for the security of your systems.  I am not
    responsible for the breakins that result from your poor security.  I
    am not responsible for the spoofed packets that the script kiddies
    source from your systems.
    
    Have you ever tried filtering on a Cisco at OC-48 rates?  It ain't
    pretty.  How about maintaing access lists on a per-customer basis for
    on a router that terminates 3000 customers, when you cannot apply
    filters on a sub-interfaces?  What about assymmetric routing,
    multi-homed customers, dynamic routing changes?
    
    Antispoof filtering is a good thing.  I do it at home.  But it is a
    technology that is not applicable to Internet backbones.  It does not
    scale.  It is something that should be done on the edges, as close to
    the stub networks as possible.  The backbone is not a stub network.
    
    sc> Every router knows what addresses to expect to be inside vs
    sc> outside.
    
    Maybe on your routers.  This is not true in general.  For the vast
    majority of routers, there is no "inside" or "outside", just a bunch
    of interfaces, running really hot.  I'm in Virginia.  Does that make
    California "outside"?
    
    We try to help our customers out when they're in trouble.  We try
    hard.  But your statements above are flat out wrong.  They were
    expressed in ignorance, and you should rectify that ignorance before
    making such sweeping statements again.
    
    As someone who actually works for a middling large ISP, in security,
    yes, you should report these scans.  But only to the ISP that sells
    service to them.  Don't report them to your ISP, unless it's a service
    impacting attack.  Traceroute to them, identify the router above their
    network.  Contact the people at the source network, they may well be
    unaware of the scan/attack.  Most of these things originate from
    compromised systems, and the admins in charge are glad to be notified.
    If that yields no results, contact their ISP.  Such scans are
    generally a violation of the AUP (acceptable use policy), and can be
    dealt with in that context.
    
    Mr. Security Coordinator, I suggest you change your gecos field to
    something more personal.  If you would like to obtain service with the
    terms you specified above, I'm sure, if you shopped around long
    enough, you'd find an ISP willing to oblige you.  Expect to pay a
    hefty premium for it though.
    
    ericb
    -- 
    Eric Brandwine     |  It is hard to believe that a man is telling the truth
    UUNetwork Security |  when you know that you would lie if you were in his
    ericbat_private       |  place.
    +1 703 886 6038    |      - H. L. Mencken
    Key fingerprint = 3A39 2C2F D5A0 FC7C  5F60 4118 A84A BD5D  59D7 4E3E
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This list is provided by the SecurityFocus ARIS analyzer service.
    For more information on this free incident handling, management 
    and tracking system please see: http://aris.securityfocus.com
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Feb 22 2002 - 13:43:23 PST