Re: Other possible protection against RST/SYN attacks (was Re: TCP RST attack
From: Gary Corcoran (garycor_at_comcast.net)
Date: 04/22/04
- Previous message: E.B. Dreger: "Re: Other possible protection against RST/SYN attacks (was Re: TCP RST attack"
- In reply to: Gary Corcoran: "Re: Other possible protection against RST/SYN attacks (was Re: TCP RST attack"
- Next in thread: Mike Tancsa: "Re: Other possible protection against RST/SYN attacks (was Re: TCP RST attack"
- Reply: Mike Tancsa: "Re: Other possible protection against RST/SYN attacks (was Re: TCP RST attack"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 18:10:30 -0400 To: Gary Corcoran <garycor@comcast.net>, freebsd-security@freebsd.org
> In any event, it still seems like a TTL of 255 is overkill for this application...
Unless, of course, you want to only accept packets with TTL
of 255. This might be fine when both ends are setup to work
this way. But it might break general interoperability...
Gary
_______________________________________________
freebsd-security@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-security-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
- Previous message: E.B. Dreger: "Re: Other possible protection against RST/SYN attacks (was Re: TCP RST attack"
- In reply to: Gary Corcoran: "Re: Other possible protection against RST/SYN attacks (was Re: TCP RST attack"
- Next in thread: Mike Tancsa: "Re: Other possible protection against RST/SYN attacks (was Re: TCP RST attack"
- Reply: Mike Tancsa: "Re: Other possible protection against RST/SYN attacks (was Re: TCP RST attack"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|