All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Interesting request. block x.x.0.0
@ 2003-01-23 18:43 Daniel F. Chief Security Engineer -
  2003-01-22  7:43 ` Raymond Leach
  2003-01-23 18:54 ` Ilguiz Latypov
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Daniel F. Chief Security Engineer - @ 2003-01-23 18:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: netfilter

Anybody know of a way to block this traffic. Notice it's comming from just the 
0.0 addresses obviously spoofed. But can you block x.x.0.0 with out blocking 
every thing else in the range with out a rule per IP. 

This is s snippit of a dDoS we seen recently. 

01:19:57.644845 45.208.0.0.1669 > x.x.x.x.53: S 1685323776:1685323776(0) 
01:19:57.651441 45.210.0.0.1434 > x.x.x.x.53: S 1296957440:1296957440(0)
01:19:57.659812 46.79.0.0.1738 > x.x.x.x.53: S 1536360448:1536360448(0)
01:19:57.668782 46.82.0.0.1099 > x.x.x.x.53: S 867631104:867631104(0)
01:19:57.693367 46.216.0.0.1627 > x.x.x.x.53: S 1775828992:1775828992(0) 
01:19:57.699377 47.86.0.0.1712 > x.x.x.x.53: S 543227904:543227904(0) 
01:19:57.717765 47.222.0.0.1109 > x.x.x.x.53: S 1708457984:1708457984(0) 
01:19:57.733676 48.93.0.0.1669 > x.x.x.x.53: S 169934848:169934848(0) 

I ended up just blocking tcp tp port 53 and allowed UDP through which allowed 
our name servers to work fine. TCP is rarely used on the IPs that were being 
attacked. 

Thanks

--
Daniel Fairchild - Chief Security Engineer | danielf@supportteam.net


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Interesting request. block x.x.0.0
@ 2003-01-23 18:54 Ilguiz Latypov
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Ilguiz Latypov @ 2003-01-23 18:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: netfilter


On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Daniel F. Chief Security Engineer - wrote:

> Anybody know of a way to block this traffic. Notice it's comming from just the
> 0.0 addresses obviously spoofed. But can you block x.x.0.0 with out blocking
> every thing else in the range with out a rule per IP.

Can the CIDR approach to networking be of any help?  I heard that the
traditional imaginary separation of networks into classes A, B, C,... is
not quite useful, so it is now possible to specify network numbers in
format

   X.X.X.X/N

where N is the number of most significant bits.

Based on the above, will the 45.208.0.0/32 notation in an iptables rule
filter the unwanted packets without rejecting any other possible valid
packets coming from 45.208.0.0/16?

--
Ilguiz Latypov
Net Integration Technologies, Inc

tel. +1 (514) 281 9191 x 117





^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2003-01-23 19:57 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-01-23 18:43 Interesting request. block x.x.0.0 Daniel F. Chief Security Engineer -
2003-01-22  7:43 ` Raymond Leach
2003-01-23 18:54 ` Ilguiz Latypov
2003-01-23 19:57   ` Daniel F. Chief Security Engineer -
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-01-23 18:54 Ilguiz Latypov

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.