On Tuesday 02 April 2002 19:15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can't tell me that many uses of this patch are antisocial. In
fact, in its intended use, it would've substantially reduced the
amount of antisocial packets leaving my network. This is a tool
with interesting uses that the
Hi,
Original report: Peter Bieringer
The LOG target prints out a long garbage on a tunnel interface.
The wrong message:
MAC=45:00:00:7c:7f:ed:00:00:11:29:cd:54:yy:yy:yy:yy:xx:xx:xx:xx:60:00:00:00:00:40:3a:36:20:01:02:00:00:00
The origin of the problem:
When a packet arrives to a tunnel
On Tuesday 02 April 2002 23:40, Aaron Hopkins wrote:
And this was the method we employed. This involves adding a filter
for each offending IP. On a large network with new attack nodes
coming up every few seconds, its not necessarily possible to catch
them all quickly.
For this purpose we
On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 06:04:24PM +0200, Maciej Soltysiak wrote:
No. If you drop packets randomly you will break existing connetions.
No you won't. Not on a working (read: bug free) TCP stack you won't
anyway. TCP was designed to handle unreliable networks where packet
loss happens. If
