On Mon, June 27, 2016 12:29, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 06/26/2016 01:50 PM, James B. Byrne wrote:
>> However, all I am seeking is knowledge on how to handle this using
>> iptables. I am sure that this defect/anomaly has already been
>> solved wherever it is an issue. Does anyone have an
On 06/26/2016 01:50 PM, James B. Byrne wrote:
However, all I am seeking is knowledge on how to handle this using
iptables. I am sure that this defect/anomaly has already been solved
wherever it is an issue. Does anyone have an example on how to do
this?
I think the bit you're missing is
On Fri, June 24, 2016 12:24, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 6/24/2016 9:20 AM, James B. Byrne wrote:
>> We received a notice from our pci-dss auditors respecting this:
>>
>> CVE-2002-0510 The UDP implementation in Linux 2.4.x kernels keeps
>> the
>> IP Identification field at 0 for all non-fragmented
On 6/24/2016 9:20 AM, James B. Byrne wrote:
We received a notice from our pci-dss auditors respecting this:
CVE-2002-0510 The UDP implementation in Linux 2.4.x kernels keeps the
IP Identification field at 0 for all non-fragmented packets, which
could allow remote attackers to determine that a
We received a notice from our pci-dss auditors respecting this:
CVE-2002-0510 The UDP implementation in Linux 2.4.x kernels keeps the
IP Identification field at 0 for all non-fragmented packets, which
could allow remote attackers to determine that a target system is
running Linux.
The NVD entry
5 matches
Mail list logo
