From owner-freebsd-net Tue Apr 17 10:47: 1 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from cithaeron.argolis.org (bgm-24-94-35-22.stny.rr.com [24.94.35.22]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9CD737B440; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 10:46:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from piechota@argolis.org) Received: from localhost (piechota@localhost) by cithaeron.argolis.org (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f3HHjQY46361; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 13:45:27 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from piechota@argolis.org) X-Authentication-Warning: cithaeron.argolis.org: piechota owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 13:45:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Matt Piechota To: Kris Kennaway Cc: Matt Dillon , Niels Provos , Wes Peters , , , Subject: Re: non-random IP IDs In-Reply-To: <20010417103823.A49384@xor.obsecurity.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 17 Apr 2001, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > :Well, that's why it's a sysctl defaulting to off in my patch. Don't > > :turn it on if you don't want to. > > > > Let me put it another way: I think this sort of thing is an excellent > > example of introducing unnecessary kernel bloat into the system. Who > > gives a fart whether someone can port scan you efficiently or > > anonymously or not? I get port scanned every day. Most hackers don't > > even bother with portscans, they just try the exploit on the target > > machines directly. > > Tools, not policy.. > > You may not care about it, but others do. Would it be better to do it as a kernel option? options IP_RANDOM_IP_ID for instance? I guess the question is, does the kernel have to do a comparison to the sysctl variable each time? -- Matt Piechota Finger piechota@emailempire.com for PGP key AOL IM: cithaeron To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message