TO UNSUBSCRIBE: email "unsubscribe issforum" in the body of your message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] for help with any problems!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even with SynAttackProtect set to 2 (the highest setting), ISS still reports
the problem.  I've even tried to run it against port 80 and twice the test
duration, but with the same results.  I also ran it against a machine that
isn't running the SRP, but basically just SP 6a, and it reports the same
thing.

That sure seems to strongly say something, but I'm not sure if it says that
there really is a problem, or that it's a false positive...

Has anyone else seen this reported against "fixed" Windows NT systems?


-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Brenner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday 22 April 2002 2:12 PM
To: Taed Wynnell
Subject: RE: False positive with syncstorm (SYN flood denial of service)

This help?

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q315669

"When crypto is outlawed, only outlaws will have crypto." P. Zimmerman 1991
___________________________________________________________________________
Christopher M. Brenner                                   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
LS&A Info Tech                                                     cbr900RR
http://www.umich.edu/~cbrenner                                       KB8JRI
734-647-8213

-----Original Message-----
From: Taed Wynnell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 4:50 PM
To: ISS Forum (E-mail)
Subject: False positive with syncstorm (SYN flood denial of service)



TO UNSUBSCRIBE: email "unsubscribe issforum" in the body of your message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] for help with any
problems!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

ISS is reporting that my Windows NT 4.0 (+ SP 6a + SRP) systems are
vulnerable to the syncstorm (SYN flood denial of service) attack.  All of
the reading that I've done seem to indicate that Microsoft fixed it in an
earlier hotfix, which has been rolled into the SRP.

The remedy says to apply the new patches and to increase "the default limit
of connection buffers".  Is the second part needed on Windows NT?  If so,
how is it done?  (A search of the NT Resource Kit Registry documentation
didn't turn up anything obvious.)

Thanks for any pointers!


Reply via email to