From owner-freebsd-net Mon Feb 22 22:50: 8 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from bubba.whistle.com (s205m7.whistle.com [207.76.205.7]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1025A1182D for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 22:50:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from archie@whistle.com) Received: (from archie@localhost) by bubba.whistle.com (8.9.2/8.9.2) id WAA53266; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 22:46:55 -0800 (PST) From: Archie Cobbs Message-Id: <199902230646.WAA53266@bubba.whistle.com> Subject: Re: IP frags from wcarchive ??? In-Reply-To: <199902230128.WAA12363@roma.coe.ufrj.br> from Joao Carlos Mendes Luis at "Feb 22, 99 10:28:33 pm" To: jonny@jonny.eng.br (Joao Carlos Mendes Luis) Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 22:46:55 -0800 (PST) Cc: wes@softweyr.com, net@FreeBSD.ORG X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL38 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Joao Carlos Mendes Luis writes: > What would you suggest to my firewall, then ? Allow TCP fragment > packets, even without knowing its port endpoints ? Is this completely > safe ? It's always safe to allow fragments, as long as you properly filter the first fragment, assuming the target machine doesn't contain som inane bug. Any packet that arrives missing its first fragment will eventually get dropped. -Archie ___________________________________________________________________________ Archie Cobbs * Whistle Communications, Inc. * http://www.whistle.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message