Alan Evans wrote:
>
> I agree, but what's most important is to maintain
> backward compatibility. If one breaks it, it's a DoS
> is some sense. I also saw some postings on NetBSD
> which does ratelimiting of ACKs (in response to SYNs),
> and ACKs RST. IMHO, the latter is bogus - why ACK a
> RST? A
I agree, but what's most important is to maintain
backward compatibility. If one breaks it, it's a DoS
is some sense. I also saw some postings on NetBSD
which does ratelimiting of ACKs (in response to SYNs),
and ACKs RST. IMHO, the latter is bogus - why ACK a
RST? And, the former may impose an arti
Chuck Swiger wrote:
>
> Alan Evans wrote:
> > I'm sure FreeBSD is vulnerable.
> >
> > http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/techalerts/TA04-111A.html
> >
> > There's a draft that (sort of) addresses this. Should
> > we adopt it?
>
> This issue is being discussed on freebsd-security now, and Mike Silbersack
Alan Evans wrote:
I'm sure FreeBSD is vulnerable.
http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/techalerts/TA04-111A.html
There's a draft that (sort of) addresses this. Should
we adopt it?
This issue is being discussed on freebsd-security now, and Mike Silbersack
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> has some patches available for
