From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 2 08:13:42 2004 Return-Path: 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 0EB4716A4CE for ; Tue, 2 Mar 2004 08:13:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from caligula.anu.edu.au (caligula.anu.edu.au [150.203.224.42]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E2A343D48 for ; Tue, 2 Mar 2004 08:13:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from avalon@caligula.anu.edu.au) Received: from caligula.anu.edu.au (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by caligula.anu.edu.au (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i22GDdbF005594; Wed, 3 Mar 2004 03:13:39 +1100 (EST) Received: (from avalon@localhost) by caligula.anu.edu.au (8.12.9/8.12.8/Submit) id i22GDcM8005592; Wed, 3 Mar 2004 03:13:38 +1100 (EST) From: Darren Reed Message-Id: <200403021613.i22GDcM8005592@caligula.anu.edu.au> To: stb@lassitu.de (Stefan Bethke) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 03:13:38 +1100 (Australia/ACT) In-Reply-To: <9CDEFA50-6C4F-11D8-9FC0-000393496BE8@lassitu.de> from "Stefan Bethke" at Mar 02, 2004 02:43:39 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org 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] List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 16:13:42 -0000 In some mail from Stefan Bethke, sie said: > > Am 01.03.2004 um 18:42 schrieb Mike Silbersack: > > A specially constructed stateful firewall could be constructed to deal > > with this DoS, but I'm certain that there's no way you could use ipf or > > anything preexisting to do the job. IPFilter v4 can prevent this attack with: pass in .. proto tcp ... keep state(strict) > OpenBSD's pf scrubbing should be helpful here. From the FAQ: > > The scrub directive also reassembles fragmented packets, protecting > > some operating systems from some forms of attack. > Uh, no, "scrub" dosn't protect against this attack at all (or at least not according to that web page.) Darren