On 1/28/2015 2:46 PM, Joe Holden wrote:
Really, how many SCTP users are there om the wild... maybe one?
It shouldn't be in GENERIC at the very least!
It's used for IP-based telecom backhaul with modern POTS networks and
cell networks. It's far better than TCP at handling the vagaries of
On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 17:01:50 -0800, jungle Boogie wrote:
Hi Nick,
On Jan 28, 2015 4:56 PM, Nick Frampton nick.framp...@akips.com wrote:
On 29/01/15 08:46, Joe Holden wrote:
Really, how many SCTP users are there om the wild... maybe one?
It shouldn't be in GENERIC at the very
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 01:20:56AM +1100, Ian Smith wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 17:01:50 -0800, jungle Boogie wrote:
Hi Nick,
On Jan 28, 2015 4:56 PM, Nick Frampton nick.framp...@akips.com wrote:
On 29/01/15 08:46, Joe Holden wrote:
Really, how many SCTP users are there om
Nonsense. Throw out a protocol that is more resistant to
Man-In-The-Middle and DDoS attacks due to an implementation bug? This
is a protocol that is built on lessons learned from TCP.
What should be done is more work improving the implementation and
widening the usage and uptake of SCTP.
On Thu,
In message 20150128194011.2175b...@hub.freebsd.org, Roger Marquis writes:
If SCTP is NOT compiled in the kernel, are you still vulnerable ?
No -- we should have mentioned that too. For GENERIC kernel however
SCTP is compiled in.
Should probably fix that too, in GENERIC, considering
+1
and +10 to enable ALTQ in GENERIC in lieu of.
On 28/01/2015 20:39, Roger Marquis wrote:
If SCTP is NOT compiled in the kernel, are you still vulnerable ?
No -- we should have mentioned that too. For GENERIC kernel however
SCTP is compiled in.
Should probably fix that too, in GENERIC,
Hi Nick,
On Jan 28, 2015 4:56 PM, Nick Frampton nick.framp...@akips.com wrote:
On 29/01/15 08:46, Joe Holden wrote:
Really, how many SCTP users are there om the wild... maybe one?
It shouldn't be in GENERIC at the very least!
We use Netflow over SCTP in our network monitoring product, so
Much more, than you explain. Hint: 3G and 4G mobile core networks. ;)
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:46 PM, Joe Holden li...@rewt.org.uk wrote:
Really, how many SCTP users are there om the wild... maybe one?
It shouldn't be in GENERIC at the very least!
On 28/01/2015 21:19, Mark Andrews wrote:
On 29/01/15 08:46, Joe Holden wrote:
Really, how many SCTP users are there om the wild... maybe one?
It shouldn't be in GENERIC at the very least!
We use Netflow over SCTP in our network monitoring product, so it would be a pain to have to build a
custom kernel.
Nick
--
Founder, CTO
Really, how many SCTP users are there om the wild... maybe one?
It shouldn't be in GENERIC at the very least!
On 28/01/2015 21:19, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 20150128194011.2175b...@hub.freebsd.org, Roger Marquis writes:
If SCTP is NOT compiled in the kernel, are you still vulnerable ?
If SCTP is NOT compiled in the kernel, are you still vulnerable ?
No -- we should have mentioned that too. For GENERIC kernel however
SCTP is compiled in.
Should probably fix that too, in GENERIC, considering how little used this
protocol is.
It is not used much because there is not
On 27.01.2015, at 22:03, Michael Grimm trash...@odo.in-berlin.de wrote:
This mail:
FreeBSD-SA-15:02.kmem Security Advisory
Other Mail:
| FreeBSD-SA-15:03.sctp Security
Advisory
3) To update your vulnerable
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 01/27/15 14:42, Mike Tancsa wrote:
On 1/27/2015 2:55 PM, FreeBSD Security Advisories wrote:
IV. Workaround
No workaround is available.
If SCTP is NOT compiled in the kernel, are you still vulnerable ?
No -- we should have mentioned
On 1/27/2015 2:55 PM, FreeBSD Security Advisories wrote:
IV. Workaround
No workaround is available.
If SCTP is NOT compiled in the kernel, are you still vulnerable ?
---Mike
--
---
Mike Tancsa, tel +1 519 651 3400
Sentex Communications, m...@sentex.net
Providing
14 matches
Mail list logo
