On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 11:48:05AM -0300, Alejandro G. Belluscio wrote: > Hello henning, > > Monday, December 09, 2002, 9:12:42 PM, you wrote: > henning> On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 06:32:01PM -0500, Small, Jim wrote: > >> May I ask why you prefer S/SAFR vs. S/SA or S/SAFPRU? > > henning> I don't. > henning> S/SA, S/SAFR - I don't care. > henning> as said, this overengineered filtering based on flags just > henning> has no net effect. if someone wants to create a state with > henning> SYN + RST, heck, let him. oh, this could crash windows? i > henning> don't care. > I usually have to protect Windows machines. Most of them Win95 and > Win98. S/SAFR is my minumum. It's a valid choice.
this was a joke. I don't think that SYN+RST crashes windows, but I don't know (nor do I care). S/SAFR is probably the most "correct" choice. P and U are so unrelated that I don't see a reason why you should even care to look at them. hmm. didn't linux have some problem with SYN+RST recently...? -- Henning Brauer, BS Web Services, http://bsws.de [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unix is very simple, but it takes a genius to understand the simplicity. (Dennis Ritchie)
