From owner-freebsd-security Mon Sep 4 10:36:41 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from jade.chc-chimes.com (jade.chc-chimes.com [216.28.46.6]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0FD237B423; Mon, 4 Sep 2000 10:36:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by jade.chc-chimes.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 5042E1C5C; Mon, 4 Sep 2000 13:36:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 13:36:39 -0400 From: Bill Fumerola To: Nate Williams Cc: Darren Reed , Robert Watson , Dragos Ruiu , cjclark@alum.mit.edu, "Crist J . Clark" , Nicolas , freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ipfw and fragments Message-ID: <20000904133639.V33771@jade.chc-chimes.com> References: <200009032010.HAA15013@cairo.anu.edu.au> <20000903173136.S33771@jade.chc-chimes.com> <200009040233.UAA12035@nomad.yogotech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <200009040233.UAA12035@nomad.yogotech.com>; from nate@yogotech.com on Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 08:33:53PM -0600 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 3.3-STABLE i386 Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 08:33:53PM -0600, Nate Williams wrote: > > > 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... I meant in my original message "I think the current behavior of holding not reassembling and not holding them in a buffer is the proper behavior for both ipfw and ipfilter". I was agreeing with darrenr. -- Bill Fumerola - Network Architect, BOFH / Chimes, Inc. billf@chimesnet.com / billf@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message