From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Mar  1 14:09:32 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 731EC16A4CE
	for <security@freebsd.org>; Mon,  1 Mar 2004 14:09:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from snafu.adept.org (adsl-67-117-158-73.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net
	[67.117.158.73])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F51143D1F
	for <security@freebsd.org>; Mon,  1 Mar 2004 14:09:32 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from mike@adept.org)
Received: by snafu.adept.org (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 8561F9EEF0; Mon,  1 Mar 2004 14:09:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by snafu.adept.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E19E9B148
	for <security@freebsd.org>; Mon,  1 Mar 2004 14:09:30 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 14:09:30 -0800 (PST)
From: Mike Hoskins <mike@adept.org>
To: security@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <20040301113726.T17968@odysseus.silby.com>
Message-ID: <20040301140900.X50257@snafu.adept.org>
References: <6.0.3.0.0.20040229182702.07a67a68@209.112.4.2>   
	<20040301113726.T17968@odysseus.silby.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Subject: Re: mbuf vulnerability
X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security issues [members-only posting]
	<freebsd-security.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security>,
	<mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-security>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-security@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security>,
	<mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 22:09:32 -0000

On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Mike Silbersack wrote:
> Would anyone feel better if I mention that it's generally pretty easy to
> DoS a box anyway?

not really, that's starting to sound too microsoft-ish.  ;)

-m