| 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 |
Archives