Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 11:06:48 -0600 (CST) From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> Cc: James Lim <jameslpin@pacific.net.sg>, Moritz Hardt <mhardt@morix.de>, Buliwyf McGraw <buliwyf@libertad.univalle.edu.co>, security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Console Message Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0011021105130.32075-100000@achilles.silby.com> In-Reply-To: <xzpofzymvyc.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2 Nov 2000, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> writes: > > There's little reason to raise the limit. Most likely he was seeing the > > rate limiting of RST packets caused by an nmap of his box. If he raises > > the limit, nmap will just scan faster next time. > > No. RST are TCP packets, not ICMP packets, and they're not rate- > limited. These were either echo replies (ping flood) or Aunreachables > (port scan). > > DES Actually, RST and icmp unreachables are rate limited, icmp echo (requests) are not. I got bored and started on a patch which also limits echos and tells exactly what it's limiting, should be done tomorrow. Mike "Silby" Silbersack To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0011021105130.32075-100000>