From owner-freebsd-security Thu Nov 2 3:54:59 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from flood.ping.uio.no (flood.ping.uio.no [129.240.78.31]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F60F37B4C5 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 03:54:55 -0800 (PST) Received: (from des@localhost) by flood.ping.uio.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA30434; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 12:53:32 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from des@ofug.org) X-URL: http://www.ofug.org/~des/ X-Disclaimer: The views expressed in this message do not necessarily coincide with those of any organisation or company with which I am or have been affiliated. To: Mike Silbersack Cc: James Lim , Moritz Hardt , Buliwyf McGraw , security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Console Message References: From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Date: 02 Nov 2000 12:53:31 +0100 In-Reply-To: Mike Silbersack's message of "Wed, 1 Nov 2000 19:01:48 -0600 (CST)" Message-ID: Lines: 12 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) Emacs/20.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Mike Silbersack 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