Re: [Full-Disclosure] ICMP (was: daily internet traffic report)
From: Barrie Dempster (barrie_at_reboot-robot.net)
Date: 10/18/04
- Previous message: James Tucker: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] Microsoft Windows Huge Text Processing Instability"
- In reply to: James Edwards: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] ICMP (was: daily internet traffic report)"
- Next in thread: Ron DuFresne: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] ICMP (was: daily internet traffic report)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
To: full-disclosure@lists.netsys.com Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 11:07:47 +0100
On Sun, 2004-10-17 at 16:35 -0600, James Edwards wrote:
>
> That is great till you want to run a server behind that firewall.
<snip>
If the server is behind the firewall the firewall will be aware of the
connection passing through and will therefore regard the packets as
legitimate.
I agree with you though blocking ICMP isn't much towards security
although as said before if we block everything and whitelist we are
closer to a secure system.
(The whitelist here being, RELATED connections)
-- Barrie Dempster (zeedo) - Fortiter et Strenue http://www.bsrf.org.uk [ gpg --recv-keys --keyserver www.keyserver.net 0x96025FD0 ]
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
- application/pgp-signature attachment: This is a digitally signed message part
- Previous message: James Tucker: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] Microsoft Windows Huge Text Processing Instability"
- In reply to: James Edwards: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] ICMP (was: daily internet traffic report)"
- Next in thread: Ron DuFresne: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] ICMP (was: daily internet traffic report)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|