Forwarded from: "Deus, Attonbitus" <ThorHammerofGod.com>
Cc: jerichoattrition.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

At 10:34 PM 1/16/2003, InfoSec News wrote:

> > I think the main reason for the knee-jerk criticism from the likes
> > of Schultz is that they work largely in a theoretical rose-colored
> > world of security, where all problems are solved after a cup of
> > coffee and a bit of pontification. Those who actually work in the
> > operational end
>
>Heed your own insults Tim. Your proposal falls in the category of
>theoretical rose-colored solutions. Hopefully you enjoyed your coffee
>as you pontificated.

When Gene unilaterally dismissed the strikeback concept in News Bites,
there was no public information available- my whitepaper was not published,
nor were any of my presentations. No attempt to contact me was made, and
no research was done to substantiate his stance. I certainly expect this
type of behavior from the general public, but not from a security
researcher in a position to editorialize to a national (worldwide?)
audience. To me, that is irresponsible. Was I irritated that he disagreed
with me? Not in the least- I was irritated because the comments were made
without even bothering to find out what I was talking about first. I felt
my response was justified in the same way that you feel your use of the
same "insult" against me is justified.

>There are several issues that you do not clearly address in such a way
>to sell this idea. Further, by bringing up the details, you will open
>yourself up to further criticism and further validate the criticism on
>the table already.

If I were concerned with criticism, I would not have floated the concept to
the security community. I am not ignorant to the fact that the forum in
which I presented a possible solution is widely unaffected by the core
problem - most of the people reading this now were not infected by Code Red
or Nimda. It is perfectly understandable that many here have the "secure
your systems and get on with it" mind set. But the persistence of old
worms and the introduction of new ones is a growing problem- and one that
should be considered now. I have been and still am willing to wade through
the "f'ing Nazi" emails in order to get to the "hey, have you thought about
this" communications that have some value.

>Who defines "relentless" attacks? Is one worm spamming your web server
>with 6 hits every 30 minutes as it tries to spread "relentless"? Is it
>really threatening your machine or stealing your bandwidth? What if is
>the same 6 hits every 5 minutes? Or even every minute? Is that really
>a "relentless attack" or is that an annoyance? Is your answer the same
>as everyone elses?

YOU define it! WE define it! The fact that you asked the question in the
first place shows that it is something that *must* be defined, along with a
host of other questions! We try to address questions like this in the
whitepaper... And note that we call it a whitepaper, not the Strikeback
Bible, because it is collection of concepts, ideas, and processes that
might help solve a problem and is not a "here are all the answers" text.

>Who authenticates these attacks? Are your web logs grounds for you to
>engage in what is normally considered felony level activity and title
>18 violations? Are you sure you are reading those web logs right? Have
>you considered some possible scenarios that might challenge your ideas
>on strikeback?
<examples snipped>

>These are three examples off the top of my head that show some serious
>flaws in the idea of strikeback technology. You are definitely not the
>first to bring this idea up, and you are certainly not the first to
>consider all the scenarios and ramifications.

Some of the issues are addressed in the whitepaper- others are not; but
they can be. We can figure this out if we try.
BTW, the wp is at http://www.hammerofgod.com/strikeback.txt if you have not
looked at it.

>If you find yourself asking what else can be done to stop these
>problems, one answer that comes to mind is simple. ISP's need to be
>more reactive to complaints about abuse on their network. Their
>customers already sign an agreement stating they will follow an
>Acceptable Use Policy.

Having it come to mind is simple, but actually *making* the ISP react is
quite a different matter. And you have now just introduced the exact same
questions- what is an attack? How much is too much? If you do a port scan
from your "mission critical" machine, does the ISP get to pull your
plug? Is is different for each ISP? And if I maliciously hack into your
machine to steal your customer's information and your ISP (or mine) does
not catch it and pull the plug, is it not now their fault? And if you
secure the hell out of all your machines, but your ISP has to hike rates
50% to cover their expenses of this new duty, are you willing to pay that
though you don't feel you personally need it?

>Every AUP I have seen covers malicious activity
>like you describe, and puts the liability on them. If your system
>attacks mine, be it from automated worm or not, and I report that
>activity to your ISP.. they need to kill your conneection until the
>problem is solved.

So, if I think you are attacking my machine, and I call your ISP, you
expect them to just kill your connection? I see as many problems with this
concept as you do with mine.

>If they read the logs I sent, they can then make
>the determination if it is a serious problem, contact you, or monitor
>your traffic to find their own verification of the activity. Once they
>find it, they pull your plug and problem is solved temporarily. While
>this system is not flawless, it is certainly more feasible and
>responsible than any strikeback proposal.

I guess we disagree... Well, I agree that something can and should be done
at the ISP level, but I don't agree that the ISP staff should be the ones
making the decision. I would much rather capitulate to a framework that
you and other security people lay out that outlines the important questions
than to have arbitrary employees of the ISP do it.

Of course, we could combine the ideas and have the ISP's deploy a
strikeback framework that the community builds.

While there a many questions to all of this, the only way for us to get an
answer is to talk about it and explore the possibilities- and that is my
intention in all of this.

Thanks for the email...

Tim

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 7.1

iQA/AwUBPiggXohsmyD15h5gEQI0mACfdh8eIYeNXB65yb5P5gLBZAbrGgMAoPkS
vhHsyIMimFPV7Pzx0qG7ab+d
=5j8I
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-
ISN is currently hosted by Attrition.org

To unsubscribe email majordomoattrition.org with 'unsubscribe isn'
in the BODY of the mail.

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]