[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F022FBF.6010806@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 15:29:19 -0700
From: Kurt Seifried <kseifrie@...hat.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
CC: Eitan Adler <lists@...anadler.com>, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
Subject: Re: speaking of DoS, openssh and dropbear (CVE-2006-1206)
On 01/01/2012 09:41 PM, Eitan Adler wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 10:54 PM, Kurt Seifried <kseifrie@...hat.com> wrote:
>> Long term I'd like to see more work on hash cash type solutions, being able to
>> arbitrarily set or have a reactive system that requires increased work on the client
>> end to prove they are a legitimate client would help with this whole DoS/DDoS class > of problem to some degree.
> But what if the attacker has a 10,000 node bot net? Wouldn't they just
> abuse the victimized computers even further?
>
>
>
If you mean the compromised botnet machines by "victimized computers"
they're already lost and gone forever in most cases.
One possible second order effect is that the botnet machines need enough
CPU power to launch their attacks that they become so slow that users
actually take action to fix their computers, which would be a good thing.
--
-- Kurt Seifried / Red Hat Security Response Team
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the
Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this
mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
