<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 7:15 AM, Trixter aka Bret McDanel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:trixter@0xdecafbad.com">trixter@0xdecafbad.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 04:52 -0400, <a href="mailto:voip-asterisk@maximumcrm.com">voip-asterisk@maximumcrm.com</a> wrote:<br>
> Of course everyone running Asterisk can get 3 humans to monitor the logs<br>
> 24/7 for the signs of an attack.<br>
><br>
<br>
</div>well if they do it right they dont have to do that, but that does make a<br>
good argument of why no one should monitor their logs ever, oh wait no<br>
it doesnt.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
<br>
<br>
> Has anyone actually seen an attack with spoofed IPs anyways?<br>
<br>
</div>yes, several in fact. I even wrote a program that would "smurf" from<br>
asterisk and other platforms which relied on spoofed IPs to get the<br>
asterisk box to send data to the victim IP, so I am fairly certain that<br>
such things do exist.<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
--<br>
Trixter <a href="http://www.0xdecafbad.com" target="_blank">http://www.0xdecafbad.com</a> Bret McDanel<br>
pgp key: <a href="http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x8AE5C721" target="_blank">http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x8AE5C721</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br>I think nat=yes mitigates these security risks (and makes things MUCH easier to configure and maintain.)<br><br>Logic seems sound and I have never had any issues with remote or local phones, so I still vote nat=yes becomes the default.<br>
<br><a href="http://www.mail-archive.com/asterisk-users@lists.digium.com/msg214006.html">http://www.mail-archive.com/asterisk-users@lists.digium.com/msg214006.html</a><br></div></div><br>-- <br>Thanks,<br>Steve Totaro <br>
+18887771888 (Toll Free)<br>+12409381212 (Cell)<br>+12024369784 (Skype)<br>