Re: [Full-disclosure] Re: router naming

From: Damian Gerow (
Date: 09/03/05

  • Next message: Gerald Holl: "Re: [Full-disclosure] SSH Bruteforce blocking script"
    Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 12:54:18 -0400

    Thus spake luka.research ( [02/09/05 11:53]:
    : >How about using FIPS-55.
    : > Thanks
    : In my modest opinion I think that with approach like FIPS-55 you can spread
    : precious information .to attackers.
    : e.g: "wich is the major link that connect two city ? ...ok let to see the
    : router name... mhhh interesting..."

    And using a naming scheme that incorporates the cities makes it much, much
    easier to administer. I'd say keep the city names, and secure the router.
    Probably more secure than giving it an obscure name, and leaving it
    unsecured. But this is that pesky secure vs. functional issue that's really
    up to the person making the decision.

    (There are dozens of other options: publish an obscure name in public DNS,
    use a normal name in private DNS, and use a CNAME/TXT/whatever RR in
    internal DNS to map the two...)

    And if you're going to publish LOC records, why not publish HINFO records as
    Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
    Hosted and sponsored by Secunia -

  • Next message: Gerald Holl: "Re: [Full-disclosure] SSH Bruteforce blocking script"