From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Mar 16 15:19:54 2014
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF0D3678
 for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 15:19:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from r2d2.bromirski.net (r2d2.bromirski.net
 [IPv6:2001:470:d067:bad::f00d])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70E212AB
 for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 15:19:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.33.128] (unknown [193.19.143.146])
 by r2d2.bromirski.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 28F1C3360AF
 for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 16:19:46 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1875\))
Subject: Re: freebsd-security Digest, Vol 478, Issue 3
From: =?utf-8?Q?=C5=81ukasz_Bromirski?= <lukasz@bromirski.net>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.73.1394971202.75583.freebsd-security@freebsd.org>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 16:18:53 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DA901120-B24F-4830-BD66-007B7C975208@bromirski.net>
References: <mailman.73.1394971202.75583.freebsd-security@freebsd.org>
To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1875)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 21:28:08 +0000
X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]"
 <freebsd-security.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-security>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-security/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-security@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 15:19:54 -0000


On 16 Mar 2014, at 13:00, freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org wrote:

> Message: 3
> From: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org>
> Subject: Re: NTP security hole CVE-2013-5211?
> Message-ID: <5323C244.8050101@freebsd.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"iso-8859-1"; Format=3D"flowed"
>=20
> the best solution is to add a firewall stateful rule so that the ONLY=20=

> port 123 udp packet that gets in is one that is a response to one you=20=

> sent out first.

No.

This is adding compexity to things which shouldn=E2=80=99t be complex.
Of course multiple of layers defend better than single one, but
not all FreeBSD boxes run with firewall turned on, and we shouldn=E2=80=99=
t
require people to have it on for =E2=80=98secure=E2=80=99 ntp operation.

/etc/ntp.conf should by default have secure posture and shouldn=E2=80=99t
require any additional firewalling to remain so.

--=20
"There's no sense in being precise when |               =C5=81ukasz =
Bromirski
 you don't know what you're talking     |      jid:lbromirski@jabber.org
 about."               John von Neumann |    http://lukasz.bromirski.net=