From owner-freebsd-security Tue Mar 13 23:29:16 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from awww.jeah.net (awww.jeah.net [216.111.239.130]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A330437B719 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 23:29:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from chris@jeah.net) Received: from localhost (chris@localhost) by awww.jeah.net (8.11.1/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f2E7T0c08415; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 01:29:00 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from chris@jeah.net) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 01:28:59 -0600 (CST) From: Chris Byrnes To: Cc: Alan Batie , Subject: Re: ipfw rule -1? In-Reply-To: <20010313232014.B496@cjc-desktop.users.reflexcom.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org I think it'd be nice to see it in the manpage right underneath the "Fine Point" you pasted. + Chris Byrnes, chris@JEAH.net + JEAH Communications + 1-866-AWW-JEAH (Toll-Free) On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Crist J. Clark wrote: > On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 08:40:20AM -0800, Alan Batie wrote: > > I'm seeing a few of these in my ipfw log and was wondering what rule -1 is? > > I couldn't find anything about it in the man page... > > > > > ipfw: -1 Refuse TCP 62.29.124.91:20041 199.2.210.241:17227 in via etha16 > > > ipfw: -1 Refuse TCP 62.29.124.91:20041 199.2.210.241:17227 in via etha16 > > > ipfw: -1 Refuse TCP 62.29.124.91:20041 199.2.210.241:17227 in via etha16 > > > ipfw: -1 Refuse TCP 62.29.124.91:97 199.2.210.241:29540 in via etha16 > > > ipfw: -1 Refuse TCP 62.29.124.91:20041 199.2.210.241:17227 in via etha16 > > The manpage does not go as far as to indicate that this is rule -1, > but it does say this happens, > > FINE POINTS > o There is one kind of packet that the firewall will always discard, > that is a TCP packet's fragment with a fragment offset of one. This > is a valid packet, but it only has one use, to try to circumvent > firewalls. > > Rule -1 is given for any packet dropped, but not dropped due to a user > rule or the default rule. A quick look at the souce indicates the > above pseudo-rule and some other fragment issues (bogusfrag) are the > only such situations. > > OK, I've answered this one enough times now. Should I send in a PR > with patch to the manpage or is this for the FAQ? > -- > Crist J. Clark cjclark@alum.mit.edu > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message