From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 22 19:48:57 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99FCF16A41F for ; Tue, 22 Nov 2005 19:48:57 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from freebsd-security-local@be-well.ilk.org) Received: from mail23.sea5.speakeasy.net (mail23.sea5.speakeasy.net [69.17.117.25]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FE1B43D60 for ; Tue, 22 Nov 2005 19:48:53 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from freebsd-security-local@be-well.ilk.org) Received: (qmail 6734 invoked from network); 22 Nov 2005 19:48:47 -0000 Received: from dsl092-078-145.bos1.dsl.speakeasy.net (HELO be-well.ilk.org) ([66.92.78.145]) (envelope-sender ) by mail23.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 22 Nov 2005 19:48:47 -0000 Received: by be-well.ilk.org (Postfix, from userid 1147) id 7096D2841B; Tue, 22 Nov 2005 14:48:46 -0500 (EST) Sender: lowell@be-well.ilk.org To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org References: <20051122120112.9D83516A423@hub.freebsd.org> <20051122075050.I81101@roble.com> <43836D25.5000101@kernel32.de> <20051122112344.U18517@roble.com> From: Lowell Gilbert Date: 22 Nov 2005 14:48:46 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20051122112344.U18517@roble.com> Message-ID: <44br0cqx9d.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> Lines: 14 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: Need urgent help regarding security X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 19:48:57 -0000 > >Be careful with adding ip addresses to deny via a packet filter. > >If an attacker uses spoofed IP adresses, you may produce yourself > >easily a denial of service attack. > > Not sure I agree with the easily part. TCP transport plus SSH > protocol spoofing is not a vector that normally needs to be secured > beyond what is already done in the kernel and router. That's not to > say such spoofing cannot be done, just that it is rare and would > require a compromised router or localnet host at a minimum. Except that it doesn't require spoofed addresses. One attacker from the local university's computer center (or from a large shell service ISP) could lock out all of the other users on that machine. Trivially.