From owner-freebsd-security Tue Oct 30 9: 0: 7 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 100D737B405 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:00:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by flood.ping.uio.no (Postfix, from userid 2602) id CB06C14C40; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 17:59:58 +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: <20011030115012.Y73979-100000@mohegan.mohawk.net> From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Date: 30 Oct 2001 17:59:58 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20011030115012.Y73979-100000@mohegan.mohawk.net> Message-ID: Lines: 12 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: > Can you be more specific? They both do stateful inspections, yes, but ipfw > inspects the incoming packets' headers for the state information, whereas > ipf inspects its own state table to associate incoming packets with a > particular connection. The behaviour you describe is stateless inspection. Ipfw has had stateful inspection (the keep-state keyword) since February 2000. 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