3 ms·
> “I likely cost them a ton of money today.” But more specifically, whoever launched the attack cost them that money. Also, ha: PING krebsonsecurity.com (127
by flashman 10y ago
> “I likely cost them a ton of money today.”
But more specifically, whoever launched the attack cost them that money.
Also, ha:
PING krebsonsecurity.com (127.0.0.1): 56 data bytes
- guessmyname 10y agoI would say that is a clever move, but to be honest that is the most he can do now. https://twitter.com/briankrebs/status/779144394360381440 https://twitter.com/briankrebs/status/779144394360381440 @ 123 IN SOA ns1.prolexic.net. hostmaster.prolexic.com. 2016092204 86400 900 1209600 3600 @ 900 IN NS ns1.prolexic.net. @ 900 IN NS ns2.prolexic.net. *@ 300 IN A 127.0.0.1 @ 300 IN MX 10 smtp.krebsonsecurity.com. @ 300 IN TXT "v=spf1 ip4:... ip4:... ip6:... a mx ?all" m 300 IN CNAME krebsonsecurity.mobify.me. smtp 900 IN A 198.251.81.28 *www 300 IN A 127.0.0.1
- kijin 10y agoIt might be more useful to return the IP address of whoever made the DNS query. This could trick the computers that make up the botnet to either attack themselves on the public interface (more resource-intensive than trying to DDoS your own loopback), or even better, their ISP's resolvers (it would force the ISP to do something about it).
- staticfloat 10y agoWith the recursive nature of DNS, I imagine that could get a little hairy as the DDoS'ers would then be targeting whichever DNS servers they were using.
- DCoder 10y ago> PING krebsonsecurity.com (127.0.0.1): 56 data bytes Reminds me of: https://twitter.com/troyhunt/status/716408697266679808 https://twitter.com/troyhunt/status/716408697266679808