From owner-freebsd-security Sat Aug 26 1:38:10 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from faith.cs.utah.edu (faith.cs.utah.edu [155.99.198.108]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D41137B43E for ; Sat, 26 Aug 2000 01:38:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from danderse@localhost) by faith.cs.utah.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA11671; Sat, 26 Aug 2000 02:38:02 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <200008260838.CAA11671@faith.cs.utah.edu> Subject: Re: Blackhat Firewall-1 Codes To: cjclark@alum.mit.edu Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 02:38:02 -0600 (MDT) Cc: dga@pobox.com (David G. Andersen), freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <20000824130421.A59226@149.211.6.64.reflexcom.com> from "Crist J . Clark" at Aug 24, 2000 01:04:21 PM From: "David G. Andersen" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Lo and behold, Crist J . Clark once said: > > > > - differing levels of "rawness" between BSD and Linux; > > BSD raw sockets perform an htons() on the ip_len, ip_off, > > and ip_tos fields. > > Hmmm.. Is this just FreeBSD as opposed to a *BSD thing? The authors > claim the codes were "developed and tested on OpenBSD and Linux." Recent OpenBSDs behave in the same manner as Linux; Net and Free behave differently. Try this one; I'll be it's the problem. -Dvae -- work: dga@lcs.mit.edu me: dga@pobox.com MIT Laboratory for Computer Science http://www.angio.net/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message