From owner-freebsd-security Thu Nov 2 9: 6:53 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from silby.com (cb34181-c.mdsn1.wi.home.com [24.183.3.139]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49AEE37B479 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 09:06:49 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 32084 invoked by uid 1000); 2 Nov 2000 17:06:48 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 2 Nov 2000 17:06:48 -0000 Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 11:06:48 -0600 (CST) From: Mike Silbersack To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Cc: James Lim , Moritz Hardt , Buliwyf McGraw , security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Console Message In-Reply-To: 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 On 2 Nov 2000, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > 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 Actually, RST and icmp unreachables are rate limited, icmp echo (requests) are not. I got bored and started on a patch which also limits echos and tells exactly what it's limiting, should be done tomorrow. Mike "Silby" Silbersack To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message