[SATLUG] ATT Thanks you

[tom weeks]

On Monday 08 January 2007 18:35, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Luis Garza wrote:
> > The IP of the attacker was 69.153.198.255
> >
> > I do admit that the 255 is odd.  I thought it was used for broadcasts and
> > such.
>
> It depends on the netmask.  If it is, for example, a /23 network, then
> all the addresses  69.153.198.1-69.153.199.254 are valid.

That's what I assumed when he posted that IP... and why I told him to block 
69.153.198.0/23 (if the IP wasn't spoofed).

Tweeks