On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 at 18:50, Eugene Grosbein <eu...@grosbein.net> wrote: > > > I believe this is correct; what about this statement: > > > > No workaround is available. Systems not using the ipfw firewall, and > > systems that use the ipfw firewall but without any rules using "tcpoptions" > > or "tcpmss" keywords, are not affected. > > Isn't removing rules with "tcpoptions/tcpmss" considered as work-around? > > Such rules may be replaced with "ipfw netgraph" rules and processing TCP > options > with NETGRAPH node ng_bpf(4). Seems as work-around to me.
Fair enough, although I don't want to provide that as an official suggestion in the advisory without testing and understanding the caveats, so probably just removing the "No workaround is available." So perhaps: Systems not using the ipfw firewall, and systems that use the ipfw firewall but with no rules using "tcpoptions" or "tcpmss" keywords, are not affected. _______________________________________________ freebsd-security@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-security-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
