From owner-freebsd-security  Wed Jan 31 13:07:36 1996
Return-Path: owner-security
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id NAA10741
          for security-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jan 1996 13:07:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from puli.cisco.com (puli.cisco.com [171.69.1.174])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA10732
          for <security@freebsd.org>; Wed, 31 Jan 1996 13:07:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by puli.cisco.com (8.6.8+c/8.6.5) with SMTP id NAA18066; Wed, 31 Jan 1996 13:05:43 -0800
Message-Id: <199601312105.NAA18066@puli.cisco.com>
To: "Garrett A. Wollman" <wollman@lcs.mit.edu>
Cc: security@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: [cisco.external.bugtraq] Re: BoS: bind() Security Problems 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 31 Jan 1996 14:30:09 EST."
             <9601311930.AA00772@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu> 
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 13:05:43 -0800
From: Paul Traina <pst@cisco.com>
Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

> 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.