Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 13:05:43 -0800 From: Paul Traina <pst@cisco.com> To: "Garrett A. Wollman" <wollman@lcs.mit.edu> Cc: security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [cisco.external.bugtraq] Re: BoS: bind() Security Problems Message-ID: <199601312105.NAA18066@puli.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 31 Jan 1996 14:30:09 EST." <9601311930.AA00772@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 14:30:09 -0500 > From: "Garrett A. Wollman" <wollman@lcs.mit.edu> > To: Paul Traina <pst@cisco.com> > Cc: security@freebsd.org > Subject: [cisco.external.bugtraq] Re: BoS: bind() Security Problems > > <<On Wed, 31 Jan 1996 10:54:27 -0800, Paul Traina <pst@cisco.com> said: > > > Yuck, I hate to think of what we're going to break when we fix this, but > > we should definitely fix this, otherwise users can hose NFS & friends. > > Lots of stuff will get broken. Although, it occurs to me... > > It should be possible to require that SO_REUSEPORT be specified on > both the original and the duplicate sockets. This way, those programs > (like ALL UDP-based servers) for which this is a requirement will > still be able to work with a minimum of modification. We can't, > however, require any modifications where multicast addresses are > involved. Correct, which is perfectly reasonable behavior.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199601312105.NAA18066>