Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 12:23:59 +0800 From: "fooler" <fooler@skyinet.net> To: "Darren Reed" <avalon@caligula.anu.edu.au>, "Richard Coleman" <rcoleman@criticalmagic.com> Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no>, Darren Reed <avalon@caligula.anu.edu.au>, Jesper Wallin <jesper@www.hackunite.net>, Garrett Wollman <wollman@csail.mit.edu> Subject: Re: packets with syn/fin vs pf_norm.c Message-ID: <0fca01c581e2$8866d600$42764eca@ilo.skyinet.net> References: <200507060356.j663ucHE011742@caligula.anu.edu.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
----- Original Message ----- From: "Darren Reed" <avalon@caligula.anu.edu.au> To: "Richard Coleman" <rcoleman@criticalmagic.com> Cc: <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>; "Garrett Wollman" <wollman@csail.mit.edu>; "Jesper Wallin" <jesper@www.hackunite.net>; "Darren Reed" <avalon@caligula.anu.edu.au>; "Dag-Erling Smørgrav" <des@des.no> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 11:56 AM Subject: Re: packets with syn/fin vs pf_norm.c > In some mail from Richard Coleman, sie said: > > 1. I thought that T/TCP was being removed from FreeBSD (already happened?). > > 2. It's trivial to predict Theo's response to this. > > 3. Since T/TCP is rare, there is little motivation to alter scrub to > > function differently than OpenBSD with respect to these packets. If > > someone really needs this, there are plenty of alternatives. > > I didn't know about (1) but I'd agree with (2) and (3). even if T/TCP was remove, sending SYN + DATA + FIN is still legal... fooler.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0fca01c581e2$8866d600$42764eca>