From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 24 10:39:10 2003 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 C160916A4B3; Wed, 24 Sep 2003 10:39:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from arginine.spc.org (arginine.spc.org [195.206.69.236]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A243143FA3; Wed, 24 Sep 2003 10:39:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bms@spc.org) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arginine.spc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1A0D65444; Wed, 24 Sep 2003 18:39:07 +0100 (BST) Received: from arginine.spc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (arginine.spc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 93925-01-12; Wed, 24 Sep 2003 18:39:07 +0100 (BST) Received: from saboteur.dek.spc.org (lardystuffer.demon.co.uk [212.228.40.202]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by arginine.spc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EF9765410; Wed, 24 Sep 2003 18:39:06 +0100 (BST) Received: by saboteur.dek.spc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 0079C31; Wed, 24 Sep 2003 18:39:00 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 18:39:00 +0100 From: Bruce M Simpson To: Ruslan Ermilov Message-ID: <20030924173900.GK650@saboteur.dek.spc.org> References: <200309241429.h8OETrhk097904@freefall.freebsd.org> <3F71ADCA.7090408@tenebras.com> <20030924162111.GA23542@sunbay.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030924162111.GA23542@sunbay.com> cc: security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Security Advisory FreeBSD-SA-03:14.arp 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: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 17:39:10 -0000 On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 07:21:11PM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 07:44:26AM -0700, Michael Sierchio wrote: > > Using static ARP entries and turning off ARP on the interface > > should be a workaround. Whether this is remotely feasible > > depends on your situation. > > > I still have not committed the code that supports static ARP > on an interface -- there's currently no way to do static ARP > only, if you disable ARP on an interface it will be disabled > in its whole. I'd like to review and potentially test this patch before it goes in, as it sounds interesting and useful to us. Thanks! BMS