Re: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Proposed additional text, section 5, following line 274

["George Kirikos" <fastflux@xxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Joe St Sauver <joe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> [existing text at lines 258-273 recounts one definition of fastflux, and
> clearly, the definition of fastflux is a pivotal issue for the draft
> report. I am, therefore, puzzled that the report omits two important
> alternative working definitions of fast flux which were discussed on
> the mailing list.]

The definition topic keeps coming up throughout the document, and I
agree with you it would make things simpler if there was some
"language" that we could all agree with. That was one of the
motivations for me proposing that "Bunny Rabbit Networks" be a term to
cover the technique itself (i.e. good and bad, irrespective of malice,
content, etc.), although any other term would suffice (i.e. just like
spam is a "bad" subset of email, "fast flux" could be a "bad" subset
of a broader technical term).

While reviewing the draft initial report, a common theme seems to be
the "stealth", anti-detection nature of the networks, so that might be
a potential other route to a general definition.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
www.LEAP.com