[toomuchtodo]

If you’re a service provider allowing your equipment to participate in an amplification attack, you’re the fool trashing the commons.

It’s an ISPs job to filter outbound udp on arbitrary ports? Shall we only let 443 tcp outbound from eyeball networks?

[hueving]

Any UDP service can be used in an amplification attack. It's not the responsibility of AWS or other hosting companies to shut down all UDP traffic.

The problem is the ISPs allowing spoofed IPs.

[mnw21cam]

So the problem here is that a number of UDP packets were sent from somewhere (with a small bandwidth) that had a spoofed source address. They were then sent to the reflection servers which produced more/bigger UDP packets that did not have a spoofed source address.

So the attacker only needs to find somewhere on the internet that is capable of generating spoofed packets. They needed a lot of places that had a reflection server, but the requirements for the spoofing was much smaller.

In other words, you would have to prevent 99.9% of the internet from being able to spoof source addresses before you fixed this problem.

[hueving]

And taking down UDP services is just as folly. It only takes a 1000 servers with 100 mbps upload streams to wipe out any single load balancer. There are at least that many root name servers.

[dylz]

udp is also used for web traffic, a very very large amount of web traffic - so you can't really block it.