Re: packets with syn/fin vs pf_norm.c
From: Jesper Wallin (jesper_at_ifconfig.se)
Date: 07/03/05
- Previous message: Michael Schuh: "Re: bind() on 127.0.0.1 in jail: bound to the outside address?"
- In reply to: Garrett Wollman: "packets with syn/fin vs pf_norm.c"
- Next in thread: Dag-Erling Smørgrav: "Re: packets with syn/fin vs pf_norm.c"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 23:56:39 +0200 To: Garrett Wollman <wollman@csail.mit.edu>
Garrett Wollman wrote:
><<On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 00:06:37 +0200, Jesper Wallin <jesper@www.hackunite.net> said:
>
>
>
>>First of all, I know that not dropping SYN/FIN isn't really a big deal, it
>>just makes no sense. But since it doesn't make any sense, I don't see
>>the reason why not to discard them.
>>
>>
>
>Perhaps because you are under the erroneous impression that such
>packets are nonsensical.
>
>-GAWollman
>
That might be the case yeah.. Yet, if I have TCP_DROP_SYNFIN in my
kernel and
sysctrl net.inet.tcp.drop_synfin set to 1, shouldn't it drop all SYN/FIN
packets no
matter how my firewall is configured?
Best regards,
Jesper Wallin
_______________________________________________
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: Michael Schuh: "Re: bind() on 127.0.0.1 in jail: bound to the outside address?"
- In reply to: Garrett Wollman: "packets with syn/fin vs pf_norm.c"
- Next in thread: Dag-Erling Smørgrav: "Re: packets with syn/fin vs pf_norm.c"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
