It would appear that your definition of "crash the Internet" is "render every Cisco router that matters ineffective at the same time". For this to happen there would have to be a combination of exploitable vulnerabilities applicable to all Cisco routers, with the exploit(s) available to the motivated attacker(s). If I recall, Mr. Lynn was addressing a vulnerability for which a patch was already available (his main complaint seems to be that it isn't widely deployed enough.) Yes it is bad that the Internet is a "Cisco monoculture" -- but how long do you think that would last if even a significant fraction of the Net were offline for an hour or more?
The reasons you mentioned for not taking down the Internet, like: it ain't as easy as advertised, the thoughts of prison, etc... are valid. However, the reason the baddies who might potentially drop the Internet haven't done so is largely because it's how they communicate.
By OKVol (not verified) on Wed, 08/10/2005 - 1:56pm.
There was a dial-based network back in the late 70's and 80's that wound up being actually run by hackers since they knew more than the people that thought they ran it. The hackers siphoned off free service in payment.
Perhaps parts of the Internet are run this way today. I cannot imagine that some sections actually had the intelligence to reliably keep it running. They must be having help.
I agree with the theory that the Internet is too valuable as a communication tool for everyone for those that know how to crash it to do so.
But, there are sections purposely crippled by DDOS stunts, but only where profitable.
Consider this
tnave (via Feedback form):
To Mark Gibbs:
It would appear that your definition of "crash the Internet" is "render every Cisco router that matters ineffective at the same time". For this to happen there would have to be a combination of exploitable vulnerabilities applicable to all Cisco routers, with the exploit(s) available to the motivated attacker(s). If I recall, Mr. Lynn was addressing a vulnerability for which a patch was already available (his main complaint seems to be that it isn't widely deployed enough.) Yes it is bad that the Internet is a "Cisco monoculture" -- but how long do you think that would last if even a significant fraction of the Net were offline for an hour or more?
How the baddies communicate
From swyman (via Feedback form):
To Paul McNamara:
The reasons you mentioned for not taking down the Internet, like: it ain't as easy as advertised, the thoughts of prison, etc... are valid. However, the reason the baddies who might potentially drop the Internet haven't done so is largely because it's how they communicate.
I remember a previous case
There was a dial-based network back in the late 70's and 80's that wound up being actually run by hackers since they knew more than the people that thought they ran it. The hackers siphoned off free service in payment.
Perhaps parts of the Internet are run this way today. I cannot imagine that some sections actually had the intelligence to reliably keep it running. They must be having help.
I agree with the theory that the Internet is too valuable as a communication tool for everyone for those that know how to crash it to do so.
But, there are sections purposely crippled by DDOS stunts, but only where profitable.