RE: [iwar] news

From: Tony Bartoletti (
Date: 2001-06-04 17:24:15

Return-Path: <>
Received: from by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Mon, 04 Jun 2001 17:17:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 15249 invoked by uid 510); 4 Jun 2001 23:17:37 -0000
Received: from ( by with SMTP; 4 Jun 2001 23:17:37 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 05 Jun 2001 00:16:50 -0000
Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 5 Jun 2001 00:16:49 -0000
Received: (qmail 55369 invoked from network); 5 Jun 2001 00:16:48 -0000
Received: from unknown ( by with QMQP; 5 Jun 2001 00:16:48 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ( by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Jun 2001 00:16:48 -0000
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.9.3/8.9.3/LLNL-gateway-1.0) with ESMTP id RAA25906 for <>; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 17:16:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.8.8/LLNL-3.0.2/ with ESMTP id RAA21354 for <>; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 17:16:47 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
In-Reply-To: <000601c0ed50$dc2ee000$679dacce@home>
References: <>
From: Tony Bartoletti <>
Mailing-List: list; contact
Delivered-To: mailing list
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 17:24:15 -0700
Subject: RE: [iwar] news
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


Thanks for the support!

Fred, when you say "we know how to stop DoS attacks", should I assume that 
you mean

a.  Forcing ISPs to not route outgoing packets with bogus source addresses 
(and blacklisting those that do?)  Can this be done, globally?

b.  Abolishing Internet Anonymity?  Can this be done, globally?

c.  "And now for something entirely different ..."?

The only way to effect the (necessarily global) scope of these solutions is 
to adopt new protocols, and then phase out (refuse to route) the previous ones.

Is that your thought in this?


At 07:48 PM 6/4/01 -0400, you wrote:
>  I have to totally agree with a couple of statements Tony et al have stated
>in regard to the DOS that CERT and others experience, having seen them and
>having quickly altered router settings so the malformed/misguided protocol
>packets do not make it in, I understand the time it takes and the cost
>associated with it. But having spent time digesting Steve's work a couple of
>days ago, I don't think so much that MS is giving people the ability to
>create protocols, I think they are giving them the ability to destroy
>protocols. If we eventually get to the point we have to stop allowing
>certain protocols to cross the bandwidth then is it not destroying the much
>needed protocol. Originally the Net was not there to hide information inside
>of various protocols, but that is what it has turned to as we can not stem
>the the ability of software to allow full control of protocols
>(misconfigure/mis-construct) to the point they cause damage, vice what the
>internet was originally made for.
>  Well that was my CDN 2 cents worth.
>65 Iber Rd
>Stittsville, Ont
>613-831-0888 (ext# 3055)
> <>

Tony Bartoletti 925-422-3881 <>
Information Operations, Warfare and Assurance Center
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Livermore, CA 94551-9900


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-06-30 21:44:15 PDT