22.04.2020 6:55, Ed Maste wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 at 18:50, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
>>
>>> I believe this is correct; what about this statement:
>>>
>>> No workaround is available. Systems not using the ipfw firewall, and
>>> systems that use the ipfw firewall but without any rules using
On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 at 18:50, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
>
> > I believe this is correct; what about this statement:
> >
> > No workaround is available. Systems not using the ipfw firewall, and
> > systems that use the ipfw firewall but without any rules using "tcpoptions"
> > or "tcpmss" keywords,
22.04.2020 5:15, Ed Maste wrote:
>>> IV. Workaround
>>>
>>> No workaround is available. Systems not using the ipfw firewall are
>>> not vulnerable.
>>
>> This is not true. The problem affects only seldom used rules matching TCP
>> packets
>> by list of TCP options (rules with "tcpoptions"
On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 at 15:29, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
>
> 21.04.2020 23:55, FreeBSD Security Advisories wrote:
> > =
> > FreeBSD-SA-20:10.ipfw Security
> > Advisory
> >
21.04.2020 23:55, FreeBSD Security Advisories wrote:
> =
> FreeBSD-SA-20:10.ipfw Security Advisory
> The FreeBSD Project
>
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
=
FreeBSD-SA-20:10.ipfw Security Advisory
The FreeBSD Project
Topic:
