Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #518112 > unrolled thread
| Started by | TTman <kraken.sankey@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-10-02 11:18 +0100 |
| Last post | 2018-10-03 21:49 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 181 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design
worldwide internet threat map TTman <kraken.sankey@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 11:18 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-02 07:07 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-02 08:45 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2018-10-02 09:18 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2018-10-02 17:22 +0000
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-02 10:28 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bitrex <user@example.net> - 2018-10-02 15:19 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map bitrex <user@example.net> - 2018-10-02 14:59 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2018-10-03 14:32 -0500
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2018-10-02 14:51 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-02 23:29 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2018-10-02 17:58 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2018-10-02 18:08 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-02 19:09 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2018-10-02 19:17 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map boB <boB@K7IQ.com> - 2018-10-02 21:17 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map boB <boB@K7IQ.com> - 2018-10-02 23:25 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-03 01:00 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2018-10-03 03:21 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-03 05:37 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2018-10-03 10:26 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-03 05:42 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2018-10-03 10:40 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-04 01:07 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2018-10-03 14:44 -0500
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2018-10-03 17:27 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 10:50 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2018-10-04 11:38 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-04 12:11 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-04 01:03 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2018-10-03 17:14 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-04 10:47 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-04 08:40 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-04 08:48 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-04 22:32 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-04 15:07 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-05 00:44 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-05 08:47 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-05 17:14 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2018-10-05 12:04 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-05 20:22 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 13:17 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-05 14:28 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2018-10-06 00:17 +0000
Re: worldwide internet threat map Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2018-10-05 16:53 +0000
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2018-10-05 12:08 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bitrex <user@example.net> - 2018-10-03 00:52 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map bitrex <user@example.net> - 2018-10-02 18:30 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-10-03 10:23 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-03 05:44 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-03 07:04 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-03 08:29 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-03 10:59 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map boB <boB@K7IQ.com> - 2018-10-03 14:06 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Bert Hickman <bert-hickman@comcast.net> - 2018-10-03 17:20 -0500
Re: worldwide internet threat map boB <boB@K7IQ.com> - 2018-10-04 00:07 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bitrex <user@example.net> - 2018-10-03 12:53 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2018-10-03 10:20 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bitrex <user@example.net> - 2018-10-03 20:36 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-03 20:12 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-03 20:26 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-04 10:53 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map bitrex <user@example.net> - 2018-10-04 11:04 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-04 08:52 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bitrex <user@example.net> - 2018-10-04 13:01 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map bitrex <user@example.net> - 2018-10-04 13:06 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map bitrex <user@example.net> - 2018-10-04 13:10 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-04 10:27 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-10-04 20:27 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map bitrex <user@example.net> - 2018-10-04 20:55 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2018-10-04 18:03 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bitrex <user@example.net> - 2018-10-04 21:04 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-05 08:55 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map <698839253X6D445TD@nospam.org> - 2018-10-05 16:12 +0000
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2018-10-05 14:00 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map <698839253X6D445TD@nospam.org> - 2018-10-06 06:03 +0000
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-06 09:22 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map <698839253X6D445TD@nospam.org> - 2018-10-06 18:48 +0000
Re: worldwide internet threat map Neon John <no@never.com> - 2018-10-06 21:17 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-07 08:22 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-07 08:54 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Neon John <no@never.com> - 2018-10-07 11:56 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-05 17:18 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2018-10-05 14:04 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-05 23:41 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2018-10-05 15:47 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-06 00:05 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2018-10-05 16:12 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2018-10-06 00:24 +0000
Re: worldwide internet threat map Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2018-10-06 12:57 +1000
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-06 08:19 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2018-10-06 22:21 +1000
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-06 09:31 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2018-10-06 09:39 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-06 10:45 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-06 08:13 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-06 09:02 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-06 09:40 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2018-10-06 11:26 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2018-10-06 11:27 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map <698839253X6D445TD@nospam.org> - 2018-10-06 18:48 +0000
Re: worldwide internet threat map Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-10-09 11:26 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-09 07:07 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-09 07:19 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2018-10-09 17:11 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-09 09:53 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-10-09 20:27 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-09 17:32 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-10 18:03 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-10 18:25 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Chris <c@b.a> - 2018-10-11 11:29 +1100
Re: worldwide internet threat map Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2018-10-05 14:47 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-06 10:47 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-04 18:45 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-04 19:35 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-05 08:04 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-05 09:08 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-05 18:16 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-05 19:24 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2018-10-05 16:55 +0000
Re: worldwide internet threat map Neon John <no@never.com> - 2018-10-05 14:50 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-10-09 10:42 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-09 07:10 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-09 17:27 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-04 18:30 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bitrex <user@example.net> - 2018-10-04 21:00 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map bitrex <user@example.net> - 2018-10-04 21:03 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-04 10:10 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-04 22:38 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-04 15:08 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-05 00:47 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-05 09:19 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-05 18:48 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2018-10-05 14:08 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-05 09:15 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-05 18:55 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2018-10-05 14:12 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-05 14:37 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-06 00:01 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 23:18 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-06 09:52 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-06 10:53 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-06 20:29 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-09 08:33 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2018-10-06 11:18 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-06 11:20 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-05 19:35 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-06 05:24 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-06 06:53 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-04 18:12 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 19:04 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-05 09:22 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-05 09:27 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-05 19:45 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-05 19:44 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-10-04 17:00 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map bitrex <user@example.net> - 2018-10-03 20:42 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-03 18:31 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-10-04 09:23 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-04 09:06 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-10-04 17:49 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-04 10:14 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-03 10:55 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-04 01:10 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 13:13 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2018-10-03 13:47 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-10-04 09:26 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map Neon John <no@never.com> - 2018-10-04 10:22 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map makolber@yahoo.com - 2018-10-04 08:16 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-04 08:44 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-10-04 17:15 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-04 09:14 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2018-10-04 09:31 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2018-10-04 07:51 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2018-10-04 08:27 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2018-10-04 09:57 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2018-10-03 14:29 -0500
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-03 13:11 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map dplatt@coop.radagast.org (Dave Platt) - 2018-10-03 13:33 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-03 16:02 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Cows are Nice <nice@cows.moo> - 2018-10-03 21:49 -0700
Page 1 of 10 [1] 2 3 … 10 Next page →
| From | TTman <kraken.sankey@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-02 11:18 +0100 |
| Subject | worldwide internet threat map |
| Message-ID | <povgmh$rfa$1@dont-email.me> |
For anyone that is interested:- https://threatmap.checkpoint.com/ThreatPortal/livemap.html --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-02 07:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2ru6rd5ui15kqd3pdneib1ojmema16hiv0@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #518112 |
On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 11:18:56 +0100, TTman <kraken.sankey@gmail.com> wrote: >For anyone that is interested:- >https://threatmap.checkpoint.com/ThreatPortal/livemap.html > >--- >This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >https://www.avast.com/antivirus If threats can be tracked, why can't they be blocked? The internet should not transport malware. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-02 08:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f9ea9895-9c12-4a93-a0d4-9cff45b45137@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #518118 |
On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 12:07:47 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote: > On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 11:18:56 +0100, TTman <kraken.sankey@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >For anyone that is interested:- > >https://threatmap.checkpoint.com/ThreatPortal/livemap.html > > > >--- > >This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > >https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > If threats can be tracked, why can't they be blocked? The internet > should not transport malware. Denial of service attacks can be recognised as threats, because they involves a lot of packets. Working out from any individual packet that it is part of an attack might be more difficult. The more basic question, which John Larkin doesn't seem to have thought about, is how one might recognise "malware" and distinguish from the sort of traffic that - say - these posts involve. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-02 09:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2s57rdpd49ov9m38uad3ontuo289r8lqbe@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #518118 |
On Tue, 02 Oct 2018 07:07:33 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 11:18:56 +0100, TTman <kraken.sankey@gmail.com> >wrote: > >>For anyone that is interested:- >>https://threatmap.checkpoint.com/ThreatPortal/livemap.html >If threats can be tracked, why can't they be blocked? The internet >should not transport malware. Because most such attacks come from hijacked PC's. The PC's are controlled by the evil bad guys from other hijacked PC's forming a "botnet". They also tend to use VPN's to cover their tracks. It's easy enough to find the source of the attacks, but not so easy finding the originator of the malware or the operators of the botnet. If you go chasing after the IP address displayed by such threat maps, you'll probably find some home or small business user with an infected PC, probably in another country. When these botnets are not busy attacking other computers, they use their spare time to distribute email spam. Here's a list of the top spammers: <https://www.spamhaus.org/rokso/> Want to help solve the spam problem? Just hire a hit man and take out these spammers in alphabetical order. No need to massacre the entire list as those further down the alphabet quickly get the idea. -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-02 17:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pp09fu$ral$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #518131 |
On Tue, 02 Oct 2018 09:18:47 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote: > Because most such attacks come from hijacked PC's. The PC's are > controlled by the evil bad guys from other hijacked PC's forming a > "botnet". They also tend to use VPN's to cover their tracks. It's easy > enough to find the source of the attacks, but not so easy finding the > originator of the malware or the operators of the botnet. If you go > chasing after the IP address displayed by such threat maps, you'll > probably find some home or small business user with an infected PC, > probably in another country. Yes Jeffrey, and most of those hijacked PCs are in places like the Far East where the users are running illegal copies of Windows which are already compromised and on top of that they don't even bother installing updates and have no firewalls or improperly configured firewalls. A bloody good reason to use Linux! -- This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-02 10:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b2da491b-c100-4089-b994-9ea1c96b54a6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #518134 |
On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 1:22:11 PM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote: > On Tue, 02 Oct 2018 09:18:47 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote: > > > Because most such attacks come from hijacked PC's. The PC's are > > controlled by the evil bad guys from other hijacked PC's forming a > > "botnet". They also tend to use VPN's to cover their tracks. It's easy > > enough to find the source of the attacks, but not so easy finding the > > originator of the malware or the operators of the botnet. If you go > > chasing after the IP address displayed by such threat maps, you'll > > probably find some home or small business user with an infected PC, > > probably in another country. > > Yes Jeffrey, and most of those hijacked PCs are in places like the Far > East where the users are running illegal copies of Windows which are > already compromised and on top of that they don't even bother installing > updates and have no firewalls or improperly configured firewalls. A > bloody good reason to use Linux! You clearly spent no time looking at that map. Much of the attacks were FROM the US! Rick C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bitrex <user@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-02 15:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <cxPsD.96294$OM2.45245@fx37.iad> |
| In reply to | #518136 |
On 10/02/2018 01:28 PM, gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 1:22:11 PM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote: >> On Tue, 02 Oct 2018 09:18:47 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote: >> >>> Because most such attacks come from hijacked PC's. The PC's are >>> controlled by the evil bad guys from other hijacked PC's forming a >>> "botnet". They also tend to use VPN's to cover their tracks. It's easy >>> enough to find the source of the attacks, but not so easy finding the >>> originator of the malware or the operators of the botnet. If you go >>> chasing after the IP address displayed by such threat maps, you'll >>> probably find some home or small business user with an infected PC, >>> probably in another country. >> >> Yes Jeffrey, and most of those hijacked PCs are in places like the Far >> East where the users are running illegal copies of Windows which are >> already compromised and on top of that they don't even bother installing >> updates and have no firewalls or improperly configured firewalls. A >> bloody good reason to use Linux! > > You clearly spent no time looking at that map. Much of the attacks were FROM the US! > > Rick C. > The map is fun to watch! USA! USA! We're kicking everybody's ass, and taking names. Seattle and Texas just tag teamed Vietnam and Russia and the Netherlands and kicked the shit outta 'em with those cyber missiles
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bitrex <user@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-02 14:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ZdPsD.171003$sO2.28558@fx41.iad> |
| In reply to | #518134 |
On 10/02/2018 01:22 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote: > On Tue, 02 Oct 2018 09:18:47 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote: > >> Because most such attacks come from hijacked PC's. The PC's are >> controlled by the evil bad guys from other hijacked PC's forming a >> "botnet". They also tend to use VPN's to cover their tracks. It's easy >> enough to find the source of the attacks, but not so easy finding the >> originator of the malware or the operators of the botnet. If you go >> chasing after the IP address displayed by such threat maps, you'll >> probably find some home or small business user with an infected PC, >> probably in another country. > > Yes Jeffrey, and most of those hijacked PCs are in places like the Far > East where the users are running illegal copies of Windows which are > already compromised and on top of that they don't even bother installing > updates and have no firewalls or improperly configured firewalls. A > bloody good reason to use Linux! > > at least overseas they sell a Windows International English edition or somesuch which you can usually get a license for from legit OEM sources for the equivalent of like 30 bux US. that's about what I'd pay for a piece of junk!!!! not the silly box retail US prices...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-03 14:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <deGdnZXwYYvIhCjGnZ2dnUU7-SOdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #518134 |
On Tue, 02 Oct 2018 17:22:06 +0000, Cursitor Doom wrote: > On Tue, 02 Oct 2018 09:18:47 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote: > >> Because most such attacks come from hijacked PC's. The PC's are >> controlled by the evil bad guys from other hijacked PC's forming a >> "botnet". They also tend to use VPN's to cover their tracks. It's >> easy enough to find the source of the attacks, but not so easy finding >> the originator of the malware or the operators of the botnet. If you >> go chasing after the IP address displayed by such threat maps, you'll >> probably find some home or small business user with an infected PC, >> probably in another country. > > Yes Jeffrey, and most of those hijacked PCs are in places like the Far > East Well, don't be so SURE about that! > A bloody good reason to use Linux! Well, that works for ME! I do get tons of hacking attempts, but with some extra measures like denyhosts and blocking some specific troublemaker's IPs, it is at least tolerable. But, I currently have about 7000 IPs blocked in my hosts.deny file, I have no idea how much overhead that causes when a legitimate user tries to log in. Jon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-02 14:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ttm7rdde9689a3hvfajpdlrlt4jgljd5k2@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #518131 |
On Tue, 02 Oct 2018 09:18:47 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote: >On Tue, 02 Oct 2018 07:07:33 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: > >>On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 11:18:56 +0100, TTman <kraken.sankey@gmail.com> >>wrote: >> >>>For anyone that is interested:- >>>https://threatmap.checkpoint.com/ThreatPortal/livemap.html > >>If threats can be tracked, why can't they be blocked? The internet >>should not transport malware. > >Because most such attacks come from hijacked PC's. A bit of added compute power in the network could snoop packets and apply some artificial intelligence to kill the bad stuff. Things like that. Of course, a decent OS just wouldn't allow nasties. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-02 23:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <NiSsD.545979$ju.489763@fx18.am4> |
| In reply to | #518153 |
On 02/10/18 22:51, John Larkin wrote: > On Tue, 02 Oct 2018 09:18:47 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> > wrote: > >> On Tue, 02 Oct 2018 07:07:33 -0700, John Larkin >> <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 11:18:56 +0100, TTman <kraken.sankey@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> For anyone that is interested:- >>>> https://threatmap.checkpoint.com/ThreatPortal/livemap.html >> >>> If threats can be tracked, why can't they be blocked? The internet >>> should not transport malware. >> >> Because most such attacks come from hijacked PC's. > > A bit of added compute power in the network could snoop packets and > apply some artificial intelligence to kill the bad stuff. Things like > that. "Things like that" have another name: "magic", as in "this is the point at which magic is invoked". > Of course, a decent OS just wouldn't allow nasties. Impossible to achieve, but most of the current crop are shockingly dismal, favouring "ease of use" and "minimal customer support calls" over security.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-02 17:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ko48rd52son9i9kgngohehbum8qs6ihoqu@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #518154 |
On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 23:29:01 +0100, Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >On 02/10/18 22:51, John Larkin wrote: >> On Tue, 02 Oct 2018 09:18:47 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 02 Oct 2018 07:07:33 -0700, John Larkin >>> <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 11:18:56 +0100, TTman <kraken.sankey@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> For anyone that is interested:- >>>>> https://threatmap.checkpoint.com/ThreatPortal/livemap.html >>> >>>> If threats can be tracked, why can't they be blocked? The internet >>>> should not transport malware. >>> >>> Because most such attacks come from hijacked PC's. >> >> A bit of added compute power in the network could snoop packets and >> apply some artificial intelligence to kill the bad stuff. Things like >> that. > >"Things like that" have another name: "magic", as in >"this is the point at which magic is invoked". Why not apply antivirus technology to the entire Net? Don't transport bad packets, or any packets from malware-sprouting IP addresses. That's not magic. > > >> Of course, a decent OS just wouldn't allow nasties. > >Impossible to achieve, but most of the current crop >are shockingly dismal, favouring "ease of use" and >"minimal customer support calls" over security. Why impossible? A decent hardware architecture and a sensible OS could allow absolute protections. Maybe RISC-V is the opportunity. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-02 18:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <db822cff-1577-4d44-933e-1d40bb510759@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #518166 |
onsdag den 3. oktober 2018 kl. 02.59.01 UTC+2 skrev John Larkin: > On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 23:29:01 +0100, Tom Gardner > <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > > >On 02/10/18 22:51, John Larkin wrote: > >> On Tue, 02 Oct 2018 09:18:47 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> On Tue, 02 Oct 2018 07:07:33 -0700, John Larkin > >>> <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 11:18:56 +0100, TTman <kraken.sankey@gmail.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> For anyone that is interested:- > >>>>> https://threatmap.checkpoint.com/ThreatPortal/livemap.html > >>> > >>>> If threats can be tracked, why can't they be blocked? The internet > >>>> should not transport malware. > >>> > >>> Because most such attacks come from hijacked PC's. > >> > >> A bit of added compute power in the network could snoop packets and > >> apply some artificial intelligence to kill the bad stuff. Things like > >> that. > > > >"Things like that" have another name: "magic", as in > >"this is the point at which magic is invoked". > > Why not apply antivirus technology to the entire Net? Don't transport > bad packets, or any packets from malware-sprouting IP addresses. > That's not magic. the internet is made route around obstacles and you there was some central way of banning stuff, you couldn't see the end of the line of the people and politicians that wanted to add their little thing to the banned list ala the great firewall of China
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-02 19:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2a41ea3d-54d9-43ec-ac30-ce28b7f39606@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #518166 |
On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 10:59:01 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote: > On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 23:29:01 +0100, Tom Gardner > <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > > >On 02/10/18 22:51, John Larkin wrote: > >> On Tue, 02 Oct 2018 09:18:47 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> On Tue, 02 Oct 2018 07:07:33 -0700, John Larkin > >>> <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 11:18:56 +0100, TTman <kraken.sankey@gmail.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> For anyone that is interested:- > >>>>> https://threatmap.checkpoint.com/ThreatPortal/livemap.html > >>> > >>>> If threats can be tracked, why can't they be blocked? The internet > >>>> should not transport malware. > >>> > >>> Because most such attacks come from hijacked PC's. > >> > >> A bit of added compute power in the network could snoop packets and > >> apply some artificial intelligence to kill the bad stuff. Things like > >> that. > > > >"Things like that" have another name: "magic", as in > >"this is the point at which magic is invoked". > > Why not apply antivirus technology to the entire Net? Don't transport > bad packets, or any packets from malware-sprouting IP addresses. > That's not magic. This conveniently ignores the question of how you identify "bad packets". Anti-virus software can identify repeated examples of the same packet - after that packet has been identified as a virus. The trick of including a field of random numbers in each viral packet has been well-known for a long time - the viral packets don't have to be identical to be effective. > >> Of course, a decent OS just wouldn't allow nasties. > > > >Impossible to achieve, but most of the current crop > >are shockingly dismal, favouring "ease of use" and > >"minimal customer support calls" over security. > > Why impossible? It may not be impossible, but we don't seem to have one yet. > A decent hardware architecture and a sensible OS could > allow absolute protections. I wonder why John Larkin thinks that? Maybe Anthony Watts has posted this claim on one of his denialist web-sites, and John Larkin believes everything he gets from them. > Maybe RISC-V is the opportunity. For the malware community? Every other computer architecture has proved to have weaknesses that malicious programmers have been able to exploit. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-02 19:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5h88rddml7p7oi2ks1b8rp2h64osds2ita@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #518166 |
On Tue, 02 Oct 2018 17:58:50 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote: >Why not apply antivirus technology to the entire Net? Don't transport >bad packets, or any packets from malware-sprouting IP addresses. >That's not magic. Because it will be like drinking from a fire hose. The traffic has to broken out into individual data streams, individual inspected by an elaborate filter designed to detect KNOWN viruses and malware. That's not easy. However, the NSA is doing something like that looking terrorist discussing their next attack plan. Right. Anyway, they probably don't look at it in real time, but rather record what they need and analyze it later at their leisure. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center> However, any evil malware spammer with a clue would encrypt all his traffic until it hits the last hop, where it is decrypted, and delivered as ready to use malware. In encrypted form, it's not sniffable and probably not easily decrypted. >>> Of course, a decent OS just wouldn't allow nasties. >> >>Impossible to achieve, but most of the current crop >>are shockingly dismal, favouring "ease of use" and >>"minimal customer support calls" over security. > >Why impossible? A decent hardware architecture and a sensible OS could >allow absolute protections. Maybe RISC-V is the opportunity. The trend is to put more and more emphasis on user based security. Vendors seem to contend that they can't guarantee the integrity and security of their own products, so maybe having the user tediously scan, filter, and test for evilware. So, they pass the buck to the users, claiming that it's somehow the victims responsibility to protect themselves. If you really want a vendor policed secure operating system, simply standardize the EULA requirements so that the vendor is financially responsible for any security breaches, malware, software bombs, and consequential damages. That should get their attention. Of course, you wouldn't be able to afford the resulting secure OS or want to run it because of all the intrusive security features. I went through all that with Unix C2 enhanced security and barely survived. More threat map sites: <https://threatmap.fortiguard.com> <https://www.akamai.com/us/en/solutions/intelligent-platform/visualizing-akamai/real-time-web-monitor.jsp> <https://threatmap.checkpoint.com/ThreatPortal/livemap.html> <https://cybermap.kaspersky.com> <https://www.fireeye.com/cyber-map/threat-map.html> <https://threatmap.bitdefender.com> -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | boB <boB@K7IQ.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-02 21:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <vpf8rd9rom4vqdbjptpe3hlno3v9bf49n3@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #518172 |
On Tue, 02 Oct 2018 19:17:13 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote: >On Tue, 02 Oct 2018 17:58:50 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote: > >>Why not apply antivirus technology to the entire Net? Don't transport >>bad packets, or any packets from malware-sprouting IP addresses. >>That's not magic. > >Because it will be like drinking from a fire hose. The traffic has to >broken out into individual data streams, individual inspected by an >elaborate filter designed to detect KNOWN viruses and malware. That's >not easy. However, the NSA is doing something like that looking >terrorist discussing their next attack plan. Right. Anyway, they >probably don't look at it in real time, but rather record what they >need and analyze it later at their leisure. ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center> >However, any evil malware spammer with a clue would encrypt all his >traffic until it hits the last hop, where it is decrypted, and >delivered as ready to use malware. In encrypted form, it's not >sniffable and probably not easily decrypted. > >>>> Of course, a decent OS just wouldn't allow nasties. >>> >>>Impossible to achieve, but most of the current crop >>>are shockingly dismal, favouring "ease of use" and >>>"minimal customer support calls" over security. >> >>Why impossible? A decent hardware architecture and a sensible OS could >>allow absolute protections. Maybe RISC-V is the opportunity. > >The trend is to put more and more emphasis on user based security. >Vendors seem to contend that they can't guarantee the integrity and >security of their own products, so maybe having the user tediously >scan, filter, and test for evilware. So, they pass the buck to the >users, claiming that it's somehow the victims responsibility to >protect themselves. If you really want a vendor policed secure >operating system, simply standardize the EULA requirements so that the >vendor is financially responsible for any security breaches, malware, >software bombs, and consequential damages. That should get their >attention. Of course, you wouldn't be able to afford the resulting >secure OS or want to run it because of all the intrusive security >features. I went through all that with Unix C2 enhanced security and >barely survived. > >More threat map sites: ><https://threatmap.fortiguard.com> ><https://www.akamai.com/us/en/solutions/intelligent-platform/visualizing-akamai/real-time-web-monitor.jsp> ><https://threatmap.checkpoint.com/ThreatPortal/livemap.html> ><https://cybermap.kaspersky.com> ><https://www.fireeye.com/cyber-map/threat-map.html> ><https://threatmap.bitdefender.com> I wonder if these attack map sites are real or all made up ? Either the map or the list of threats or spams coming up on the bottom of the screens ? I've seen these maps a whiel back but never really thought about how they get that info. I pulled up a couple of differentpairs of those sites and placed them next to each other but it's hard to tell if they are showing the same thing or not. I'm sure there are at least delays of one site vs. the other so I can't really tell... How do they obtain this data ? One Youtube show I watch now and then is AT&T ThreatTraq where they talk about the most scanned ports that week. Not sure how they get that info either but maybe because they are a communications company ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | boB <boB@K7IQ.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-02 23:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <m2o8rdtg0cmasvh7o71rlubffi8vi370ms@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #518173 |
On Tue, 02 Oct 2018 21:17:30 -0700, boB <boB@K7IQ.com> wrote: >On Tue, 02 Oct 2018 19:17:13 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >wrote: > >>On Tue, 02 Oct 2018 17:58:50 -0700, John Larkin >><jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote: >> >>>Why not apply antivirus technology to the entire Net? Don't transport >>>bad packets, or any packets from malware-sprouting IP addresses. >>>That's not magic. >> >>Because it will be like drinking from a fire hose. The traffic has to >>broken out into individual data streams, individual inspected by an >>elaborate filter designed to detect KNOWN viruses and malware. That's >>not easy. However, the NSA is doing something like that looking >>terrorist discussing their next attack plan. Right. Anyway, they >>probably don't look at it in real time, but rather record what they >>need and analyze it later at their leisure. >><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center> >>However, any evil malware spammer with a clue would encrypt all his >>traffic until it hits the last hop, where it is decrypted, and >>delivered as ready to use malware. In encrypted form, it's not >>sniffable and probably not easily decrypted. >> >>>>> Of course, a decent OS just wouldn't allow nasties. >>>> >>>>Impossible to achieve, but most of the current crop >>>>are shockingly dismal, favouring "ease of use" and >>>>"minimal customer support calls" over security. >>> >>>Why impossible? A decent hardware architecture and a sensible OS could >>>allow absolute protections. Maybe RISC-V is the opportunity. >> >>The trend is to put more and more emphasis on user based security. >>Vendors seem to contend that they can't guarantee the integrity and >>security of their own products, so maybe having the user tediously >>scan, filter, and test for evilware. So, they pass the buck to the >>users, claiming that it's somehow the victims responsibility to >>protect themselves. If you really want a vendor policed secure >>operating system, simply standardize the EULA requirements so that the >>vendor is financially responsible for any security breaches, malware, >>software bombs, and consequential damages. That should get their >>attention. Of course, you wouldn't be able to afford the resulting >>secure OS or want to run it because of all the intrusive security >>features. I went through all that with Unix C2 enhanced security and >>barely survived. >> >>More threat map sites: >><https://threatmap.fortiguard.com> >><https://www.akamai.com/us/en/solutions/intelligent-platform/visualizing-akamai/real-time-web-monitor.jsp> >><https://threatmap.checkpoint.com/ThreatPortal/livemap.html> >><https://cybermap.kaspersky.com> >><https://www.fireeye.com/cyber-map/threat-map.html> >><https://threatmap.bitdefender.com> > > >I wonder if these attack map sites are real or all made up ? Either >the map or the list of threats or spams coming up on the bottom of the >screens ? I've seen these maps a whiel back but never really thought >about how they get that info. > Answered my own question I think by Googling..... DuH ! From one map info in particular anyway... http://map.norsecorp.com/#/platform " Norse Intelligence Platform Every second, Norse collects and analyzes live threat intelligence from darknets in hundreds of locations in over 40 countries. The attacks shown are based on a small subset of live flows against the Norse honeypot infrastructure, representing actual worldwide cyber attacks by bad actors. At a glance, one can see which countries are aggressors or targets at the moment, using which type of attacks (services-ports). Hovering over the ATTACK ORIGINS, ATTACK TARGETS, or ATTACK TYPES will highlight just the attacks emanating from that country or over that service-port respectively. Hovering over any bubble on the map, will highlight only the attacks from that location and type. Norse exposes its threat intelligence via high-performance, machine-readable APIs in a variety of forms. Norse also provides products and solutions that assist organizations in protecting and mitigating cyber attacks. " >I pulled up a couple of differentpairs of those sites and placed them >next to each other but it's hard to tell if they are showing the same >thing or not. I'm sure there are at least delays of one site vs. the >other so I can't really tell... How do they obtain this data ? > >One Youtube show I watch now and then is AT&T ThreatTraq where they >talk about the most scanned ports that week. Not sure how they get >that info either but maybe because they are a communications company ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-03 01:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <l3t8rd9ouj511ckkvolcqbcodii63d1f48@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #518172 |
On Tue, 02 Oct 2018 19:17:13 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote: >On Tue, 02 Oct 2018 17:58:50 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote: > >>Why not apply antivirus technology to the entire Net? Don't transport >>bad packets, or any packets from malware-sprouting IP addresses. >>That's not magic. > >Because it will be like drinking from a fire hose. The traffic has to >broken out into individual data streams, individual inspected by an >elaborate filter designed to detect KNOWN viruses and malware. That's >not easy. However, the NSA is doing something like that looking >terrorist discussing their next attack plan. Right. Anyway, they >probably don't look at it in real time, but rather record what they >need and analyze it later at their leisure. ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center> >However, any evil malware spammer with a clue would encrypt all his >traffic until it hits the last hop, where it is decrypted, and >delivered as ready to use malware. In encrypted form, it's not >sniffable and probably not easily decrypted. > >>>> Of course, a decent OS just wouldn't allow nasties. >>> >>>Impossible to achieve, but most of the current crop >>>are shockingly dismal, favouring "ease of use" and >>>"minimal customer support calls" over security. >> >>Why impossible? A decent hardware architecture and a sensible OS could >>allow absolute protections. Maybe RISC-V is the opportunity. > >The trend is to put more and more emphasis on user based security. >Vendors seem to contend that they can't guarantee the integrity and >security of their own products, so maybe having the user tediously >scan, filter, and test for evilware. So, they pass the buck to the >users, claiming that it's somehow the victims responsibility to >protect themselves. Right. Current computer architectures and OSs are fundamentally garbage. Let's hope that is not a permanent condition. How many security bugs has Windows had so far? Tens of thousands? Why are Microsoft and Intel not liable for the damage done? If you really want a vendor policed secure >operating system, simply standardize the EULA requirements so that the >vendor is financially responsible for any security breaches, malware, >software bombs, and consequential damages. That should get their >attention. Of course, you wouldn't be able to afford the resulting >secure OS or want to run it because of all the intrusive security >features. I went through all that with Unix C2 enhanced security and >barely survived. A secure hardware/software architecture neen not be complex or expensive, but it would need a clean design, not just more kluges piled on top of fundamentally stupid designs. But meanwhile, the network could look for and not transport malware. I'd pay for an ISP and a DNS that protected me better. > >More threat map sites: ><https://threatmap.fortiguard.com> ><https://www.akamai.com/us/en/solutions/intelligent-platform/visualizing-akamai/real-time-web-monitor.jsp> ><https://threatmap.checkpoint.com/ThreatPortal/livemap.html> ><https://cybermap.kaspersky.com> ><https://www.fireeye.com/cyber-map/threat-map.html> ><https://threatmap.bitdefender.com> If all those infected packets are identified, why are they delivered? -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tabbypurr@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-03 03:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5e87e6ae-cc03-4520-922d-60a14f6aa993@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #518179 |
On Wednesday, 3 October 2018 09:00:47 UTC+1, John Larkin wrote: > On Tue, 02 Oct 2018 19:17:13 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> > wrote: > > >On Tue, 02 Oct 2018 17:58:50 -0700, John Larkin > ><jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote: > > > >>Why not apply antivirus technology to the entire Net? Don't transport > >>bad packets, or any packets from malware-sprouting IP addresses. > >>That's not magic. > > > >Because it will be like drinking from a fire hose. The traffic has to > >broken out into individual data streams, individual inspected by an > >elaborate filter designed to detect KNOWN viruses and malware. That's > >not easy. However, the NSA is doing something like that looking > >terrorist discussing their next attack plan. Right. Anyway, they > >probably don't look at it in real time, but rather record what they > >need and analyze it later at their leisure. > ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center> > >However, any evil malware spammer with a clue would encrypt all his > >traffic until it hits the last hop, where it is decrypted, and > >delivered as ready to use malware. In encrypted form, it's not > >sniffable and probably not easily decrypted. > > > >>>> Of course, a decent OS just wouldn't allow nasties. > >>> > >>>Impossible to achieve, but most of the current crop > >>>are shockingly dismal, favouring "ease of use" and > >>>"minimal customer support calls" over security. > >> > >>Why impossible? A decent hardware architecture and a sensible OS could > >>allow absolute protections. Maybe RISC-V is the opportunity. > > > >The trend is to put more and more emphasis on user based security. > >Vendors seem to contend that they can't guarantee the integrity and > >security of their own products, so maybe having the user tediously > >scan, filter, and test for evilware. So, they pass the buck to the > >users, claiming that it's somehow the victims responsibility to > >protect themselves. > > Right. Current computer architectures and OSs are fundamentally > garbage. Let's hope that is not a permanent condition. what sells is determined by the free market. In the free market, junk windows is what most buy. Linux does better but isn't perfect. There have been new OSes written from the ground up to solve the problems of linux, but without a wide apps base they have very few followers, and with very few followers get little development thus few new apps. > How many security bugs has Windows had so far? Tens of thousands? Why > are Microsoft and Intel not liable for the damage done? EULA More publicity about ms's problems would help the clueless, but no-one wants to risk being sued nor upset the profitable model. > If all those infected packets are identified, why are they delivered? Google blocks attempts to visit suspect sites via google searches. It's a rather flawed system though. NT
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-03 05:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <968f4b05-a238-4dbe-aff4-bd346249f55d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #518179 |
On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 4:00:47 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote: > On Tue, 02 Oct 2018 19:17:13 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> > wrote: > > >On Tue, 02 Oct 2018 17:58:50 -0700, John Larkin > ><jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote: > > > >>Why not apply antivirus technology to the entire Net? Don't transport > >>bad packets, or any packets from malware-sprouting IP addresses. > >>That's not magic. > > > >Because it will be like drinking from a fire hose. The traffic has to > >broken out into individual data streams, individual inspected by an > >elaborate filter designed to detect KNOWN viruses and malware. That's > >not easy. However, the NSA is doing something like that looking > >terrorist discussing their next attack plan. Right. Anyway, they > >probably don't look at it in real time, but rather record what they > >need and analyze it later at their leisure. > ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center> > >However, any evil malware spammer with a clue would encrypt all his > >traffic until it hits the last hop, where it is decrypted, and > >delivered as ready to use malware. In encrypted form, it's not > >sniffable and probably not easily decrypted. > > > >>>> Of course, a decent OS just wouldn't allow nasties. > >>> > >>>Impossible to achieve, but most of the current crop > >>>are shockingly dismal, favouring "ease of use" and > >>>"minimal customer support calls" over security. > >> > >>Why impossible? A decent hardware architecture and a sensible OS could > >>allow absolute protections. Maybe RISC-V is the opportunity. > > > >The trend is to put more and more emphasis on user based security. > >Vendors seem to contend that they can't guarantee the integrity and > >security of their own products, so maybe having the user tediously > >scan, filter, and test for evilware. So, they pass the buck to the > >users, claiming that it's somehow the victims responsibility to > >protect themselves. > > Right. Current computer architectures and OSs are fundamentally > garbage. Let's hope that is not a permanent condition. > > How many security bugs has Windows had so far? Tens of thousands? Why > are Microsoft and Intel not liable for the damage done? > > > If you really want a vendor policed secure > >operating system, simply standardize the EULA requirements so that the > >vendor is financially responsible for any security breaches, malware, > >software bombs, and consequential damages. That should get their > >attention. Of course, you wouldn't be able to afford the resulting > >secure OS or want to run it because of all the intrusive security > >features. I went through all that with Unix C2 enhanced security and > >barely survived. > > A secure hardware/software architecture neen not be complex or > expensive, but it would need a clean design, not just more kluges > piled on top of fundamentally stupid designs. > > But meanwhile, the network could look for and not transport malware. > > I'd pay for an ISP and a DNS that protected me better. > > > > > >More threat map sites: > ><https://threatmap.fortiguard.com> > ><https://www.akamai.com/us/en/solutions/intelligent-platform/visualizing-akamai/real-time-web-monitor.jsp> > ><https://threatmap.checkpoint.com/ThreatPortal/livemap.html> > ><https://cybermap.kaspersky.com> > ><https://www.fireeye.com/cyber-map/threat-map.html> > ><https://threatmap.bitdefender.com> > > If all those infected packets are identified, why are they delivered? > I was reading this post without knowing who wrote and didn't even get halfway through before I thought, "What idiot wrote this?" I scrolled up to find... JL wrote it. Surprise!!! Once again, showing a complete ignorance of all the issues. "Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing." I never realized Shakespeare had met JL. Rick C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 10 [1] 2 3 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design
csiph-web