1 |
* Scott Taylor <scott@××××××××××××××××.net> 8. Jan 04 |
2 |
> Replying in a specific manner which may have been at one point the |
3 |
> proper and polite way for an IP stack to behave, often turns into a |
4 |
> method for abuse. |
5 |
|
6 |
Then make a new RFC. It will be discussed. (Avoid the time around 1. |
7 |
April). |
8 |
|
9 |
> Spoof a bunch of syn packets to a host you know replies with a rst, |
10 |
> and it sends all those extra packets to a victim machine who never |
11 |
> sent the syn packet in the first place. So that machine sends back |
12 |
> "port unreachables" and further clogs up their network. |
13 |
|
14 |
Huh, RST isn't answered... thank you for making your savvy obvious. |
15 |
|
16 |
> Add to that all the silly microsoft products that either blatantly |
17 |
> ignore or just never bothered to read the appropriate RFC... For my |
18 |
> network, I opt to spew out as few replies to unwanted traffic as |
19 |
> possible. I've already got too many worms out there wasting my bandwidth |
20 |
> trying to infect me with the sql slammer or whatever the worm of the day |
21 |
> is. |
22 |
|
23 |
There are periods you may ignore selected packets. It's your admins job |
24 |
to react to such things. |
25 |
|
26 |
> I'd rather not waste any more of my bandwidth telling them that they |
27 |
> can't connect here. They probably aren't even checking for an icmp |
28 |
> unreachable message back from me anyway. |
29 |
|
30 |
Wow, so crackers, spammers and MS's programers (all the same bunch) are |
31 |
dictating the rules? This net is not made for wormes or stupid |
32 |
implemtations, but for communication. If you don't want to communicate, |
33 |
plug off. |
34 |
|
35 |
Thank you, |
36 |
regards, Frank. |
37 |
-- |
38 |
Sigmentation fault |
39 |
|
40 |
-- |
41 |
gentoo-security@g.o mailing list |