From owner-freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 16 11:49:03 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E87137B401 for ; Wed, 16 Apr 2003 11:49:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from moo.sysabend.org (moo.sysabend.org [66.111.41.70]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF19E43F75 for ; Wed, 16 Apr 2003 11:49:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ragnar@sysabend.org) Received: by moo.sysabend.org (Postfix, from userid 1004) id 09C5FD17; Wed, 16 Apr 2003 11:48:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by moo.sysabend.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08969C14; Wed, 16 Apr 2003 11:48:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 11:48:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Jamie Bowden To: Larry Rosenman In-Reply-To: <315530000.1050518262@lerlaptop.iadfw.net> Message-ID: <20030416114002.K46401-100000@moo.sysabend.org> X-representing: Only myself. X-badge: We don't need no stinking badges. X-obligatory-profanity: Fuck X-moo: Moo. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: mobile@freebsd.org cc: John Polstra Subject: Re: "broadcast ping" message X-BeenThere: freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile computing with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 18:49:03 -0000 On Wed, 16 Apr 2003, Larry Rosenman wrote: > --On Wednesday, April 16, 2003 11:33:31 -0700 Jamie Bowden > wrote: > > > On Wed, 16 Apr 2003, Larry Rosenman wrote: > > > >> --On Wednesday, April 16, 2003 10:58:20 -0700 John Polstra > >> wrote: > >> > >> > In article <20030416105033.H46401-100000@moo.sysabend.org>, > >> > Jamie Bowden wrote: > >> >> On Wed, 16 Apr 2003, John Polstra wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > To make a FreeBSD system respond to broadcast pings, you have to set > >> >> > the sysctl variable net.inet.icmp.bmcastecho to 1. > >> >> > >> >> Shouldn't the default be to DTRT and respond unless disabled? Until > >> >> now, the only systems on my network that didn't respond to broadcast > >> >> pings were my windows boxes, but I consider them broken by default. > >> >> Why has the default behavior changed, and isn't this a POLA issue? > >> > > >> > It was changed for security reasons. Responding to broadcast pings > >> > creates several potential denial of service attacks. > >> It's also against current best practices for ISP's. Even Cisco changed > >> the routers > >> to NOT respond to directed-broadcast by default. > >> > >> The RFC was NOT written for today's internet. > > > > Then submit a draft for a superceding RFC, don't ignore it just because > > it's inconvenient. That's a Microsoft attitude. > Take it up with the NSP folks. I've not written standards stuff, and this > is now a > Best Current Practices. I've had my share of DDoS's from broadcast pings. > > It's NOT JUST ME, it's the ENTIRE ISP Community. All the world is not an ISP. Having worked in that industry in the past, I understand why they do things, but changing the default behaviour to violate RFCs is not what I consider a good thing. The option to turn it is great for those who want or need it. Using Cisco as an example doesn't bolster your argument, BTW, they've done their share of boneheaded things in the past as well. If the world is a better place for an updated standard, then fix the standard, don't ignore it. This isn't directed at you personally Larry, it's just a general rant. Jamie Bowden -- "It was half way to Rivendell when the drugs began to take hold" Hunter S Tolkien "Fear and Loathing in Barad Dur" Iain Bowen