| 1 |
Am Donnerstag, 8. Januar 2004 18:57 schrieb mir Daniel Privratsky: |
| 2 |
> Wrong. |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> 1) If you don't receive "destination unreachable" packet, you know |
| 5 |
> nothing about the target host yet. This is not perfect-network world. |
| 6 |
> There can be other fw/router anywhere in the way, killing this type of |
| 7 |
> icmp traffic. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> 2) It slows scans a lot. You can of course do scannig in parallel, but |
| 10 |
> don't be surprised, when you find yourself killed with no mercy by IDS, |
| 11 |
> after matching SYN threshold. 1000+ syns/sec form IP adress to |
| 12 |
> monitored system is sure ban. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
What the fuck... |
| 15 |
I don't understand this, we want to break internet standards because some |
| 16 |
script kids could be (under some circumstances) a little bit slower with |
| 17 |
their attacks, which can only be successful, when an administrator is too |
| 18 |
stupid to configure his systems. Is that the argumentation for breaking |
| 19 |
internet standards? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
*argh* |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
mfg |
| 24 |
Oli |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
gentoo-security@g.o mailing list |
Archives