Tony Finch <dot(_at_)dotat(_dot_)at> wrote:
Seth Breidbart <sethb(_at_)panix(_dot_)com> wrote:
Jeff Silverman <jeff(_at_)commercialventvac(_dot_)com> wrote:
Does the wide spread adoption of IPv6 help solve the SPAM problem in
any way?
Indirectly, a little.
It gets much harder to scan IP space for zombiable machines when that
space is 128 bits wide than when it's 32 bits wide.
People who run botnets don't have to scan for zombies. They identify
themselves by joining IRC channels.
That's why I wrote "zombiable machines" and not "zombies". Once
they're zombies, they report to their controllers. But when they're
merely vulnerable, somebody has to find them and turn them into
zombies. Some methods of doing that involve scanning IP space
(remember the studies showing it takes on average under 4 minutes or
so for a new machine to be found and zombied?)
Of course, other methods (email, web pages) don't require scanning, so
the problem isn't solved, just one set of methods of making zombies
becomes much harder.
If anything, the larger address space of IPv6 will make things
worse.
Do you mean because each machine will have its own IP address rather
than running through NAT in the typical home installation? If not, I
don't see how.
Seth
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg