1 |
On Feb 18, 2012 7:27 PM, "Volker Armin Hemmann" <volkerarmin@××××××××××.com> |
2 |
wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
> Am Samstag, 18. Februar 2012, 06:00:00 schrieb Dale: |
5 |
> > Alan McKinnon wrote: |
6 |
> > > On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 04:26:02 -0600 |
7 |
> > > |
8 |
> > > Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
9 |
> > >> Howdy, |
10 |
> > >> |
11 |
> > >> I ran across this and though it was a joke. Did a news search and |
12 |
> > >> sure enough, it is reported in lots of places. Random linky: |
13 |
> > >> |
14 |
> > >> |
15 |
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2102856/Will-FBI-shut-Internet-Ma |
16 |
> > >> rch-8-virus-concerns.html?ito=feeds-newsxml |
17 |
> > >> |
18 |
> > >> Is there any truth to this mess? My bigger and better question, how |
19 |
> > >> is shutting down the internet going to fix this? When the net comes |
20 |
> > >> back up, they are still going to be infected. Right? |
21 |
> > >> |
22 |
> > >> I'm glad I run a really nice Linux OS. |
23 |
> > > |
24 |
> > > Gawd, I hate it when morons write sensational articles that attempt to |
25 |
> > > make sense to other morons. You get crap like that. |
26 |
> > > |
27 |
> > > So if this is legit, and I'm not saying it is, what happened is this: |
28 |
> > > |
29 |
> > > The malware changes the DNS cache settings on infected machines, |
30 |
> > > sending the user to rogue caches. The FBI captured some (or all) of |
31 |
> > > these rogue caches and (possibly) tried to fix them. A court has now |
32 |
> > > said those rogue caches must now be shut down. |
33 |
> > > |
34 |
> > > So if the morons reading the article do nothing, on March 8 the DNS |
35 |
> > > caches they use will be down. The user's DNS will not work. |
36 |
> > > |
37 |
> > > OMFG!!!!!!! Da intartubes is broken!!!!! |
38 |
> > > |
39 |
> > > <sigh> |
40 |
> > > |
41 |
> > > Instead, why not just set the DNS caches to something NOT owned by |
42 |
Ivan |
43 |
> > > The Russian Spammer? |
44 |
> > > |
45 |
> > > And no, the intartubes will NOT be switched off. |
46 |
> > |
47 |
> > I don't really think they can unless they just cut power to all the |
48 |
> > computers. After all, the internet is supposed to be redundant right? |
49 |
> > If there is a few computers still running that have a connection, it is |
50 |
> > still working. Sort of anyway. |
51 |
> > |
52 |
> > Does make one wonder tho. They have been talking about having a |
53 |
> > internet "off switch" but I'm not sure it would be that easy. |
54 |
> |
55 |
> basically, yes. Take down the core routers and backbones and everything |
56 |
falls |
57 |
> apart. |
58 |
> |
59 |
> -- |
60 |
> #163933 |
61 |
> |
62 |
|
63 |
Indeed. In fact, easier than that. |
64 |
|
65 |
Just inject false BGP routes into one of the backbone level routers, and |
66 |
see how wide the Internet becomes 'impacted'. Do it to maybe 5 or 6 other |
67 |
routers that watch guard over the transatlantic and transpacific routes, |
68 |
and watch as the Internet fold upon itself. |
69 |
|
70 |
I was once a certified Network Engineer before I became a System Admin, so |
71 |
I know. The soft underbelly of the Intartubes is depressingly very |
72 |
vulnerable. |
73 |
|
74 |
Rgds, |