Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 22:11:54 -0500 (CDT) From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> To: Suleiman Souhlal <ssouhlal@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Gandalf The White <gandalf@digital.net> Subject: Re: FreeBSD and the Rose Attack / NewDawn Message-ID: <20050508221054.X10047@odysseus.silby.com> In-Reply-To: <52F4D230-9D2D-4D75-93DC-FF54BB902D98@FreeBSD.org> References: <BEA2382D.1B2B2%gandalf@digital.net> <52F4D230-9D2D-4D75-93DC-FF54BB902D98@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 8 May 2005, Suleiman Souhlal wrote: > The patch at http://people.freebsd.org/~ssouhlal/testing/ > ip_reass-20050507.diff does just this. > Could you kindly test it? > > Bye, > -- > Suleiman Souhlal | ssouhlal@vt.edu The concept sounds ok, as long as it doesn't change how fragment reassembly works. We don't want to reassemble fragments in a way other than IDSes would. I'll take a look it this later in the week then. Mike "Silby" Silbersack
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050508221054.X10047>