Re: Mailman attack in progress

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 8:41 AM, Derek Atkins <derek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> After analyzing the attack pattern, I've added a new long-term measure
> When you have time, could you elaborate on what long-term countermeasure
> you put into place?  Enquiring minds want to know.

Good morning everyone (adjusted for your local timezone as appropriate)...

I've had several requests of this type this morning.

The attack against Mailman was sophisticated.  It spoke not only to a
good understanding of Mailman, but also, possibly, to a good
understanding of what we have done to block attacks in the past.  It
was automated, yes, and widely distributed... but it was well adapted
to the current state of Mailman today.  The attack pattern suggests to
me that the primary goal was not so much flooding a few (obviously
fake) target addresses with email, but, rather, forcing email
providers to block the IETF (and any other impacted users) to prevent
the flood of mail we were generating as a result of the attack.

Although to my great disappointment I don't have the luxury of
participating in the IETF as a contributor, I do take the IETF's
mission very seriously.  I've learned in my years of associating with
many of you that the IETF faces strong opposition from individuals,
groups and governments who do *not* want global communications and
connectivity to work... and that the IETF takes its ability to reach
out to - and include - individuals around the world who want to
participate - very seriously.  As a result, I personally consider this
attack to be both directed, and serious.

I know that everyone is interested in what I found and what I did, and
I get that.. I would be too!.  On the other hand, *I* (and my small
team) are the ones who get woken up at 3 in the morning local time
(inevitably!) to deal with these types of things.  And I have no
illusions that the botnet authors and users are going to just "go
away" - as with the spammers, it's a constant battle of "us vs
them"... and I really don't feel like enabling their childishness
anymore.

So, needless to say, I am hesitant to just openly describe attack
countermeasures on a public list.  :-)   I'm sorry for that - I truly
am - because as I said *I* would want to know, too.   Although in this
case it's not a big deal, just a tweak or two, but adjustments that,
were they published, would be much easier for the bot authors to
"adjust for".  For all of these reasons, I'm not comfortable just
unilaterally exposing the IETF's defenses here... and I hope that you
will all understand this.  I am preparing a summary report to the TMC
outlining what was done, and I need to leave it to them to determine
if - and how best - to present the information to interested persons.

Thanks for your support as we deal with the ongoing threats to the IETF.

Glen
--
Glen Barney
IT Director
AMS (IETF Secretariat)




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]