From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 26 09:04:21 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF310517; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 09:04:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.tdx.com (mail.tdx.com [62.13.128.18]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 981E322F; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 09:04:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.12.30.106] (vpn01-01.tdx.co.uk [62.13.130.213]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.tdx.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/) with ESMTP id t1Q94IfL015172 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 26 Feb 2015 09:04:19 GMT Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 09:04:18 +0000 From: Karl Pielorz To: Remko Lodder Subject: Re: FreeBSD Security Advisory FreeBSD-SA-15:04.igmp (fwd) - ipfw fix? Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <1BE461E0-D2AC-4222-8D41-B7F97E83FD74@FreeBSD.org> References: <1BE461E0-D2AC-4222-8D41-B7F97E83FD74@FreeBSD.org> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 09:04:21 -0000 --On 25 February 2015 18:21 +0100 Remko Lodder wrote: > This suggests that you can filter the traffic: > > Block incoming IGMP packets by protecting your host/networks with a > firewall. (Quote from the SA). It does, but it doesn't specifically say whether ipfw on *the host that's being protected* is sufficient I'd imagine in some scenarios that won't work (because the host simply receiving a malformed packet would cause issues) - so was just getting it clarified that an ipfw rule on the vulnerable *host itself* blocking igmp (any to any) is sufficient in this case. i.e. You don't need a 'external' firewall sat in front of the hosts to do that job. -Karl