Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision | |||
en:dpi:dpi_options:opt_ddos:ddos_dos:ddos_dos_description [2023/10/09 11:26] – elena.krasnobryzh | en:dpi:dpi_options:opt_ddos:ddos_dos:ddos_dos_description [2024/09/26 15:29] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
- | ======ddos_dos_description====== | + | ====== |
+ | {{indexmenu_n> | ||
+ | It is important to hide a hacker' | ||
+ | |||
+ | The only effective protection in the first case is in temporary renting of a wide channel and redirecting of the whole incoming traffic into that channel by BGP announcement or DNS. This kind of protection is typically offered by dedicated companies. However, an operator or a client can use it in a limited scale by themselves. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The operator or the client can arrange protection by there own means in the second case: by filtering dangerous packets from the inbound traffic before they reach the system under attack. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The typical attacks of this second kind are: | ||
+ | - SYN flood: an attack by SYN packets | ||
+ | - RST flood: an attack by RST packets((Our tests show that this kind of attack is not effective against modern OS. However, if in practice the protection against them is still required, we shall add it in the coming upgrades.)) | ||
+ | - fragmented UDP flood - an attack by fragmented UDP packets | ||
+ | |||
+ | Modern operating systems are capable to sustain such attacks to some degree. If it is not enough, one has to use the filtering system inserted before the system under attack. |