From owner-freebsd-security  Mon Sep  4  9:25:53 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Received: from ns.yogotech.com (ns.yogotech.com [206.127.123.66])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 602A637B422; Mon,  4 Sep 2000 09:25:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nomad.yogotech.com (nomad.yogotech.com [206.127.123.131])
	by ns.yogotech.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA08127;
	Mon, 4 Sep 2000 10:25:47 -0600 (MDT)
	(envelope-from nate@nomad.yogotech.com)
Received: (from nate@localhost)
	by nomad.yogotech.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA14327;
	Mon, 4 Sep 2000 10:25:45 -0600 (MDT)
	(envelope-from nate)
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 10:25:45 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <200009041625.KAA14327@nomad.yogotech.com>
From: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Darren Reed <avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au>
Cc: nate@yogotech.com, billf@chimesnet.com (Bill Fumerola),
	rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG (Robert Watson), dr@kyx.net (Dragos Ruiu),
	cjclark@alum.mit.edu, cjclark@reflexnet.net (Crist J . Clark),
	list@rachinsky.de (Nicolas), freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: ipfw and fragments
In-Reply-To: <200009040345.OAA24476@cairo.anu.edu.au>
References: <200009040233.UAA12035@nomad.yogotech.com>
	<200009040345.OAA24476@cairo.anu.edu.au>
X-Mailer: VM 6.34 under 19.16 "Lille" XEmacs Lucid
Reply-To: nate@yogotech.com (Nate Williams)
Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

> > > > It never reassembles and doesn't hold them in a buffer until they're
> > > > all received either.
> > > 
> > > Which I still think is the proper behavior for both ipfw and ipfilter.
> > 
> > I can think of some trivially easy DoS attacks if this is done...
> 
> Ummm, what exactly would you be inflicting a DoS attack on ?

The firewall.


Nate


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