[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: another DirPort DoS attacker

To: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: another DirPort DoS attacker
From: Dominik Schaefer <schaedpq2@xxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 14:11:36 +0200
Delivered-to: archiver@xxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: or-talk-outgoing@xxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 08:12:06 -0400
In-reply-to: <e646fda30809030358v622572e0ka4374237721c54a1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <200809030041.m830fpBq010464@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <e646fda30809030358v622572e0ka4374237721c54a1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Macintosh/20080213)

John Brooks schrieb:
> This definitely needs some limits added (why would one IP ever need
> more than a couple directory connections to one location?)
NAT - Network Address Translation - comes to mind. It is also possible
to run multiple Tor instances on one multi-user machine. The requests
in both cases are completely legitimate, especially in case of
high-bandwidth mirrors or relays.
That probably won't produce hundreds of simultaneous connections, but
be careful with limiting conns/IP.

Regards,
Dominik

References:
- Re: another DirPort DoS attacker
  - From: Scott Bennett
- Re: another DirPort DoS attacker
  - From: John Brooks

Prev by Author: Re: peculiar server "bandwidth" posted by server "mnl" and possible new type of attack
Next by Author: Re: Is the ITU Undermining Internet Anonymity?
Previous by thread: Re: another DirPort DoS attacker
Next by thread: Re: another DirPort DoS attacker
Index(es):
- Author
- Thread