On 07/04/2018 01:39 AM, Alin Năstac wrote:
On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 11:32 PM Philip Prindeville
wrote:
On Jul 3, 2018, at 3:22 PM, Alin Năstac wrote:
On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 6:39 PM Philip Prindeville
wrote:
Aren’t all inbound SYNs unsolicited by definition? Is there a danger of
reflection
On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 11:32 PM Philip Prindeville
wrote:
> > On Jul 3, 2018, at 3:22 PM, Alin Năstac wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 6:39 PM Philip Prindeville
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Aren’t all inbound SYNs unsolicited by definition? Is there a danger of
> >> reflection attacks?
> >
> >
> On Jul 3, 2018, at 3:22 PM, Alin Năstac wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 6:39 PM Philip Prindeville
> wrote:
>>
>> Aren’t all inbound SYNs unsolicited by definition? Is there a danger of
>> reflection attacks?
>
> Not all inbound SYNs are unsolicited. Take for instance active mode
> FTP
On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 6:39 PM Philip Prindeville
wrote:
>
> Aren’t all inbound SYNs unsolicited by definition? Is there a danger of
> reflection attacks?
Not all inbound SYNs are unsolicited. Take for instance active mode
FTP transfers where the client resides on the LAN . In this case the
FTP
Aren’t all inbound SYNs unsolicited by definition? Is there a danger of
reflection attacks?
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 2, 2018, at 9:29 AM, Alin Nastac wrote:
>
> From: Alin Nastac
>
> RFC 6092 recommends in section 3.3.1 that an IPv6 CPE must respond to
> unsolicited inbound SYNs with
From: Alin Nastac
RFC 6092 recommends in section 3.3.1 that an IPv6 CPE must respond to
unsolicited inbound SYNs with an ICMPv6 Destination Unreachable error
code 1 (Communication with destination administratively prohibited).
Signed-off-by: Alin Nastac
---
defaults.c | 21
