HoundDawg wrote:

Actually, no.  They are totally related.  The only difference between the
two is merely the ports really or a slightly different technique, which can
easily be scripted.
Sorry, but I still fail to see how they should be related. You said UA was attacked by a (classical, I assume) SYN flood attack. This type of DoS attack is based on using up the victims resources. This can be countered by discarding SYN packets in a firewall.

The DDoS attck making use of game servers to attack a victim is a bandwidth flood. You can't do anything against that on the victim machine, the bottleneck is further up the network. The *pipe* to the victim will already be overloaded.

How are these related?

Windows 2000 and XP also have similar settings as well.  But, that basically
only deals with a low number of SYN connections and only adds wait-time to
the connections.  It still causes the OS to do something with the packets.
The netfilter will do the blocking before syncookies is needed.
In a general sense, a netfilter will cause the OS to do something with the TCP packets, too: the filtering. But I would agree that it probably causes less load than in the case of syn cookies where the cookie is generated and sent back.


Yes, in a perfect world this would happen.  But, apparently, not even Time
Warner does this. O_o
I'm not even sure that every router can do that. :(

Florian.


--
Want to produce professional emails and Usenet postings?
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html

_______________________________________________
hlds_apps mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_apps

Reply via email to