From owner-freebsd-security  Thu Feb 15 13:42:41 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Received: from amsmta04-svc.chello.nl (mail-out.chello.nl [213.46.240.7])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 603DD37B491
	for <security@freebsd.org>; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:42:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from devon ([212.83.73.144]) by amsmta04-svc.chello.nl
          (InterMail vK.4.02.00.10 201-232-116-110 license a3a2682fa4a9abbd0742aa9624d87426)
          with SMTP id <20010215214421.FDLX4610.amsmta04-svc@devon>;
          Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:44:21 +0100
Message-Id: <4.1.20010215223737.00948470@pop.iae.nl>
X-Sender: roijers@pop.iae.nl
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:42:47 +0100
To: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@uunet.co.za>
From: Stefan <roijers@iae.nl>
Subject: Re: Abnormal behaviour of "established" rule with ipfw? 
Cc: security@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <11651.982225965@axl.fw.uunet.co.za>
References: <Your message of "Wed, 14 Feb 2001 21:17:18 +0100."             <4.1.20010214211242.0094ac90@pop.iae.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

At 10:32 15-2-01 +0200, you wrote:
>
>
>Do you use any bridging between lo0 and another interface?

No, I'm using an almost 'default' configuration according the book. Using natd
makes no difference (tested with and without)
I think it has something to do with the combination of 4.1-Release and the
patch
The patch I think has been created and tested with 4.2-Release

Just having some friends verifying this.. I'm going to upgrade to 4.2-release
with patches, so I can see if the problem then still exists.

Thanks for answering,

Stefan

>
>Ciao,
>Sheldon.



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message