Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 13:19:44 -0500 From: Barney Wolff <barney@databus.com> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Controlling ports used by natd Message-ID: <20031212181944.GA33245@pit.databus.com> In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.2.20031212103142.04611738@localhost> References: <200312120312.UAA10720@lariat.org> <20031212074519.GA23452@pit.databus.com> <6.0.0.22.2.20031212011133.047ae798@localhost> <20031212083522.GA24267@pit.databus.com> <6.0.0.22.2.20031212103142.04611738@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 10:41:50AM -0700, Brett Glass wrote: > At 01:35 AM 12/12/2003, Barney Wolff wrote: > > >Oops, sorry for the confusion. How fancy a change is up to you, > >but changing ALIAS_PORT_BASE and ALIAS_PORT_MASK (and _EVEN) > >would let you confine the port range without much work. > > The current algorithm works so long as the blocked ports have > numbers less than 32768. But there are now lots of Trojans and > worms that use higher ports, and admins may want to block them. > So, there ought to be a way to tell libalias "don't assign anything > in this set of ports" -- via a list or a bitmap. How is this problem confined to NAT? Seems to me that any system connecting to the Internet would have the same issue, if it's actually a problem at all. So if I were going to solve it (which I'm not) I would expose the kernel's "pick a high port" function, add hitlist capability, and have libalias use it. -- Barney Wolff http://www.databus.com/bwresume.pdf I'm available by contract or FT, in the NYC metro area or via the 'Net.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031212181944.GA33245>