We hit half-million: The Cidr Report

[jeff-kell at utc.edu (Jeff Kell)]

On 4/29/2014 11:37 PM, TheIpv6guy . wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 7:54 PM, Jeff Kell <jeff-kell at utc.edu> wrote:
>> On 4/29/2014 2:06 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> If everyone who had 30+ inaggregable IPv4 prefixes replaced them with 1 (or even 3) IPv6 prefixesâ?¦
>>> As a bonus, we could get rid of NAT, too. ;-)
>>> /me ducks (but you know I had to say it)
>> Yeah, just when we thought Slammer / Blaster / Nachi / Welchia / etc /
>> etc  had been eliminated by process of "can't get there from here"... we
>> expose millions more endpoints...
>>
>> /me ducks too (but you know *I* had to say it)
>>
> No ducking here.  You forgot Nimda.  Do you have an example from the
> last 10 years of this class ?

Oh?  Anything hitting portmapper (tcp/135), or CIFS (tcp/445), or RDP
(tdp/3389 -- CVE-2012-0002 ring any bells?). 

The vulnerabilities never stop.  We just stop paying attention because
most of us have blocked 135-139 and 445 and 3389 at the border long ago.

Now granted that 80/443 (server-side) are more dangerous these days :) 
But that doesn't eliminate the original risks. 

These are ports that were originally open by default...  and if you
"don't" have a perimeter policy, you're "wrong" (policy, compliance,
regulation, etc).

Not to mention that PCI compliance requires you are RFC1918 (non-routed)
at your endpoints, but I digress...

Jeff