From owner-freebsd-security Sat Sep 2 23:38: 1 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from jade.chc-chimes.com (jade.chc-chimes.com [216.28.46.6]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C1BB37B424 for ; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 23:38:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by jade.chc-chimes.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 854261C5C; Sun, 3 Sep 2000 02:37:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 02:37:59 -0400 From: Bill Fumerola To: Dragos Ruiu Cc: Nicolas , freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ipfw and fragments Message-ID: <20000903023759.O33771@jade.chc-chimes.com> References: <007a01c01457$3b9eff80$e4aa603e@gottt> <20000901170437.J33771@jade.chc-chimes.com> <00090217534118.20066@smp.kyx.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <00090217534118.20066@smp.kyx.net>; from dr@kyx.net on Sat, Sep 02, 2000 at 05:50:02PM -0700 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 3.3-STABLE i386 Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat, Sep 02, 2000 at 05:50:02PM -0700, Dragos Ruiu wrote: > > > Is there a way to make ipfw to reassemble fragmented ip packets before passing them through the rules? > > > > No. The relevant bits are only in the first packet. > > > It could be made to reassemble them, > but it would incurr a performance hit. What do you gain? Nothing that I can think that ipfw currently tests for is in the non-initial fragment. If we tested for length of data or something like that (on my list), it might become relevant, but not really. ipfw examines data on a packet-by-packet level. -- Bill Fumerola - Network Architect, BOFH / Chimes, Inc. billf@chimesnet.com / billf@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message