From owner-freebsd-security Tue Oct 30 8:42:34 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from flood.ping.uio.no (flood.ping.uio.no [129.240.78.31]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49FD037B401 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 08:42:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by flood.ping.uio.no (Postfix, from userid 2602) id 6B73B14C2E; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 17:42:16 +0100 (CET) X-URL: http://www.ofug.org/~des/ X-Disclaimer: The views expressed in this message do not necessarily coincide with those of any organisation or company with which I am or have been affiliated. To: Ralph Huntington Cc: Michael Scheidell , Subject: Re: can I use keep-state for icmp rules? References: <20011030102625.U73979-100000@mohegan.mohawk.net> From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Date: 30 Oct 2001 17:42:15 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20011030102625.U73979-100000@mohegan.mohawk.net> Message-ID: Lines: 13 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Ralph Huntington writes: > ipfw does not really track the state, but ipfilter (ipf) does. My > understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong!) is that ipfw could be > fooled by incoming packets spoofing the state of the connection, whereas > ipf keeps its own table and relies on that instead of the incoming > packets' assertions. -=r=- Not true. Both ipf and ipfw can do both stateless and stateful inspection. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message