From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Oct 27 01:06:58 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B50916A4BF
	for <security@freebsd.org>; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 01:06:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from trillian.santala.org (ip212-226-173-33.adsl.kpnqwest.fi
	[212.226.173.33])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9DF5F43F93
	for <security@freebsd.org>; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 01:06:55 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from jake@iki.fi)
Received: (qmail 34964 invoked by uid 11053); 27 Oct 2003 09:06:53 -0000
Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 27 Oct 2003 09:06:52 -0000
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:06:52 +0200 (EET)
From: Jarkko Santala <jake@iki.fi>
X-X-Sender: jake@trillian.santala.org
To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>
In-Reply-To: <20031027080240.GA9552@rot13.obsecurity.org>
Message-ID: <20031027110203.B96390@trillian.santala.org>
References: <200310270731.AAA23485@lariat.org>
	<20031027080240.GA9552@rot13.obsecurity.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
cc: security@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Best way to filter "Nachi pings"?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security issues [members-only posting]
	<freebsd-security.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security>,
	<mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-security>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-security@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security>,
	<mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:06:58 -0000

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, Kris Kennaway wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 12:31:46AM -0700, Brett Glass wrote:
> > We're being ping-flooded by the Nachi worm, which probes subnets for
> > systems to attack by sending 92-byte ping packets. Unfortunately,
> > IPFW doesn't seem to have the ability to filter packets by length.
> > Assuming that I stick with IPFW, what's the best way to stem the
> > tide?
>
> Block all ping packets?  Most security-conscious admins do this

D'oh? I like ping very much and it would make me very sad indeed if I
couldn't ping my boxes to solve possible network problems along the way. I
fail to see the security problem and possible DoS issues could be solved
by using limiting of sort.

Definitely this block-all approach is not sane, its like if someone
complains about NFS being broken you'd say disable it. Filtering packets
by length on the other hand is a very nice feature to have.

=09-jake

--=20
Jarkko Santala <jake(=E4t)iki.fi>  System Administrator  http://iki.fi/jake=
/