Date: 02 Nov 2000 12:53:31 +0100 From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> To: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> Cc: James Lim <jameslpin@pacific.net.sg>, Moritz Hardt <mhardt@morix.de>, Buliwyf McGraw <buliwyf@libertad.univalle.edu.co>, security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Console Message Message-ID: <xzpofzymvyc.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> In-Reply-To: Mike Silbersack's message of "Wed, 1 Nov 2000 19:01:48 -0600 (CST)" References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0011011900580.29981-100000@achilles.silby.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> writes: > There's little reason to raise the limit. Most likely he was seeing the > rate limiting of RST packets caused by an nmap of his box. If he raises > the limit, nmap will just scan faster next time. No. RST are TCP packets, not ICMP packets, and they're not rate- limited. These were either echo replies (ping flood) or Aunreachables (port scan). DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzpofzymvyc.fsf>