/* HINT: Search archives @ http://www.indyramp.com/masq/ before posting!
/* ALSO: Don't quote this header. It makes you look lame :-) */
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Shawn Campbell wrote:
> He said that under certain conditions within the operating system
> (other tasks it is performing) that the firewall rules will be
> "ignored" in favor of the other tasks and will let harmful packets
> get in. He said that certain checks get "skipped" under certain
> circumstances.
{coughs into hand} *bullshit*
:)
With defragmentation enabled, the only way a firewall rule would get
"skipped" in Linux is if there was another rule before it that also
matched the traffic, and you weren't aware of it.
I'd love to hear him defend his position with specific examples.
Particularly if I'm wrong...
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ ICQ#15735746 http://www.wolfenet.com/~jhardin/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpk -a finger://gonzo.wolfenet.com/jhardin
768: 0x41EA94F5 - A3 0C 5B C2 EF 0D 2C E5 E9 BF C8 33 A7 A9 CE 76
1024: 0xB8732E79 - 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The question of whether people should be allowed to harm themselves
is simple. They *must*.
-- Charles Murray
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14 days until she returns
_______________________________________________
Masq maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Admin requests can be handled at http://www.indyramp.com/masq-list/ --
THIS INCLUDES UNSUBSCRIBING!
or email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PLEASE read the HOWTO and search the archives before posting.
You can start your search at http://www.indyramp.com/masq/
Please keep general linux/unix/pc/internet questions off the list.
