From owner-freebsd-security Tue Apr 17 14:20:52 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mail.wlcg.com (mail.wlcg.com [207.226.17.4]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB1C637B424; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 14:20:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rsimmons@wlcg.com) Received: from localhost (rsimmons@localhost) by mail.wlcg.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f3HLJbS92759; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 17:19:41 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from rsimmons@wlcg.com) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 17:19:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Rob Simmons To: Matt Dillon Cc: Kris Kennaway , Niels Provos , Wes Peters , , , Subject: Re: non-random IP IDs In-Reply-To: <200104171731.f3HHVFu94944@earth.backplane.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 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 On Tue, 17 Apr 2001, Matt Dillon wrote: > Let me put it another way: I think this sort of thing is an excellent > example of introducing unnecessary kernel bloat into the system. Who > gives a fart whether someone can port scan you efficiently or > anonymously or not? I get port scanned every day. Most hackers don't > even bother with portscans, they just try the exploit on the target > machines directly. You could add a kernel config variable in case someone wants a less bloated kernel. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE63LNpv8Bofna59hYRA/5RAKCIRJTLpcf8kZ7q86QeLrfUzWBM9gCgqhuO GTxP1jwxVOgpsCpfGjx10js= =Y/2k -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message