Re: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an MX record of 0.0.0.0 o r 127.0.0.1)

2001-01-29 Thread Paul Jarc
Scott Gifford [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It means that a user sending a steady stream of 10 (small) messages/sec over a dialup connection makes your system deal with 600 messages/sec, which would normally take a T1. But this doesn't involve any real network connections - it's all on loopback.

Re: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an MX record of 0.0.0.0 o r 127.0.0.1)

2001-01-29 Thread Greg White
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 05:56:38PM -0500, Paul Jarc wrote: Scott Gifford [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It means that a user sending a steady stream of 10 (small) messages/sec over a dialup connection makes your system deal with 600 messages/sec, which would normally take a T1. But this

Re: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an MX record of 0.0.0.0 o r 127.0.0.1)

2001-01-29 Thread Peter van Dijk
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 03:17:14PM -0800, Greg White wrote: [snip] A user on a dialup sending 10 messages per second can start a DoS attack normally only possible for a user with a T1, consisting of 600 messages per second. And with only the system-load (taken as a broad concept :) associated

Re: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an MX record of 0.0.0.0 o r 127.0.0.1)

2001-01-25 Thread Scott Gifford
Greg Owen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well I guess that this one is definitely elligible for the "qmail security challenge". http://web.infoave.net/~dsill/qmail-challenge.html I don't think so. The challenge says: Obviously, the purpose of reporting this bug wasn't to win the