NetFilter
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: ..prevention, was: syn DDoS attack solution

To: Steven M Campbell <Netfilter@SCampbell.net>
Subject: Re: ..prevention, was: syn DDoS attack solution
From: Arnt Karlsen <arnt@c2i.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 20:34:34 +0200
Cc: netfilter@lists.netfilter.org
Delivered-to: sp-com-lists@consult.net
Delivered-to: netfilter-list1@securepoint.com
In-reply-to: <030f37e8000023b8@intmail01.analysts.com>
List-archive: </pipermail/netfilter>
List-help: <mailto:netfilter-request@lists.netfilter.org?subject=help>
List-id: General discussion and user questions <netfilter.lists.netfilter.org>
List-post: <mailto:netfilter@lists.netfilter.org>
List-subscribe: <https://lists.netfilter.org/mailman/listinfo/netfilter>, <mailto:netfilter-request@lists.netfilter.org?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://lists.netfilter.org/mailman/listinfo/netfilter>, <mailto:netfilter-request@lists.netfilter.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Organization: ing. Arnt Karlsen
References: <5C9E8CCEEB81ED498AC0C3B0054704F3029B6DE0@webmail.latis.com> <46651F04.9020709@bgs.hu> <46657048.4040600@SCampbell.net> <20070605172248.5a156549.arnt@c2i.net> <030f37e8000023b8@intmail01.analysts.com>
Sender: netfilter-bounces@lists.netfilter.org
User-agent: 007 ;o)
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 11:40:36 -0400, Steven wrote in message 
<030f37e8000023b8@intmail01.analysts.com>:

> Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 10:16:40 -0400, Steven wrote in message 
> > <46657048.4040600@SCampbell.net>:
> >
> >   
> > > And, most important for folks here, do egress filtering on your 
> > > firewall!    Help prevent zombie machines on your own networks from 
> > > being a problem, you can't stop your end users from bringing infections 
> > > into your network but you can control their spread.
> > >     
> >
> > ..what tricks _are_ out there?  Set up some kinda p0f deamon and 
> > cut 'n tarpit any and all Wintendo network traffic attempts?  
> > Or even feed them LROS thru ActiveX if they need firm hints?
> > 
> 
> Not really very tricky, limit outbound traffic to what is needed.   Do 
> all of your workstations need UDP ports outbound?  Smtp?    For a lot of 
> sites the average workstations internet requirements are very small, 
> especially if proxys are used for SMTP,HTTP,FTP, etc.  Just by blocking 
> most of the end users from direct internet access (or at least to a 
> small set of outbound protocol/ports) we render those machines pretty 
> useless to the bad guys. 

..no problem, GNU/Linux only /25 shop here.

..but I also want to deny all windroids access to internet and make 
them fetch and use some safe os off my (Debian etc) lan mirror, before 
I allow them outbound.  Just a wee wifi spot biz idea, but if Microsoft
can't secure their "OS", HTFAISTDI?  ;o)

> It does, however, become very tricky if it's not done up front.  It's 
> really really tough to figure out what the requirements are if anyone 
> could historically do anything they wanted.    It's far better to 
> seriously restrict things up front and put in the exceptions as you find 
> them.   Sites that have historically allowed all outbound traffic are a 
> two fold problem, it's hard to fix and they are exactly the sorts of 
> sites the bad guys like to use.

..aye, but easy if it's your net, just enforce your ban on Wintendo.  
Now, I'm GNU+Linux only shop and have no recent Wintendo experience
since early 1998, I had Wintendo95 and ran away, so I look for pointers
on "ID their OS first, then chk if they have paid my bill and deserve
access."


-- 
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o)
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
  Scenarios always come in sets of three: 
  best case, worst case, and just in case.



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>