Re: Log spam: Limiting * response from 1 to 200 packets/sec

2016-12-21 Thread Ben Woods
On Thu., 22 Dec. 2016 at 12:45 am, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > That was my failure and already fixed. > Thanks for the fix! For those of us playing along at home, I believe the fix can in r310032. https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=revision&revision=310032 Regards, Ben ___

Re: Log spam: Limiting * response from 1 to 200 packets/sec

2016-12-21 Thread Gleb Smirnoff
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 11:03:14AM +0100, Eivind Nicolay Evensen wrote: E> E> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 09:48:59AM -0600, Eric van Gyzen wrote: E> > On 12/13/2016 09:24, Michael Butler wrote: E> > > Any hints as to why all of my -current equipment is complaining like below. Is E> > > there a sysctl

Re: Log spam: Limiting * response from 1 to 200 packets/sec

2016-12-21 Thread Eivind Nicolay Evensen
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 09:48:59AM -0600, Eric van Gyzen wrote: > On 12/13/2016 09:24, Michael Butler wrote: > > Any hints as to why all of my -current equipment is complaining like below. > > Is > > there a sysctl to moderate/turn this off? > > > > Dec 13 10:00:01 archive kernel: Limiting icmp

Re: Log spam: Limiting * response from 1 to 200 packets/sec

2016-12-13 Thread Gleb Smirnoff
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 11:07:19AM -0500, Michael Butler wrote: M> >> Any hints as to why all of my -current equipment is complaining like below. Is M> >> there a sysctl to moderate/turn this off? M> >> M> >> Dec 13 10:00:01 archive kernel: Limiting icmp unreach response from 1 to 200 M> >> packe

Re: Log spam: Limiting * response from 1 to 200 packets/sec

2016-12-13 Thread Allan Jude
On 2016-12-13 10:24, Michael Butler wrote: > Any hints as to why all of my -current equipment is complaining like > below. Is there a sysctl to moderate/turn this off? > > Dec 13 10:00:01 archive kernel: Limiting icmp unreach response from 1 to > 200 packets/sec > Dec 13 10:00:21 archive last mess

Re: Log spam: Limiting * response from 1 to 200 packets/sec

2016-12-13 Thread Gary Palmer
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 11:19:18AM -0500, Michael Butler wrote: > On 12/13/16 11:15, Gary Palmer wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 10:43:27AM -0500, Michael Butler wrote: > >> On 12/13/16 10:29, Dimitry Andric wrote: > >> > >>> Somebody is most likely port scanning your machines. I see this all t

Re: Log spam: Limiting * response from 1 to 200 packets/sec

2016-12-13 Thread Gleb Smirnoff
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 11:07:19AM -0500, Michael Butler wrote: M> On 12/13/16 10:48, Eric van Gyzen wrote: M> > On 12/13/2016 09:24, Michael Butler wrote: M> >> Any hints as to why all of my -current equipment is complaining like below. Is M> >> there a sysctl to moderate/turn this off? M> >> M>

Re: Log spam: Limiting * response from 1 to 200 packets/sec

2016-12-13 Thread Michael Butler
On 12/13/16 11:15, Gary Palmer wrote: On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 10:43:27AM -0500, Michael Butler wrote: On 12/13/16 10:29, Dimitry Andric wrote: Somebody is most likely port scanning your machines. I see this all the time on boxes connected to the internet. As are mine. I wouldn't mind so muc

Re: Log spam: Limiting * response from 1 to 200 packets/sec

2016-12-13 Thread Gary Palmer
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 10:43:27AM -0500, Michael Butler wrote: > On 12/13/16 10:29, Dimitry Andric wrote: > > > Somebody is most likely port scanning your machines. I see this all the > > time on boxes connected to the internet. > > As are mine. I wouldn't mind so much if the message contained

Re: Log spam: Limiting * response from 1 to 200 packets/sec

2016-12-13 Thread Michael Butler
On 12/13/16 10:48, Eric van Gyzen wrote: On 12/13/2016 09:24, Michael Butler wrote: Any hints as to why all of my -current equipment is complaining like below. Is there a sysctl to moderate/turn this off? Dec 13 10:00:01 archive kernel: Limiting icmp unreach response from 1 to 200 packets/sec D

Re: Log spam: Limiting * response from 1 to 200 packets/sec

2016-12-13 Thread Matthew Seaman
On 2016/12/13 15:43, Michael Butler wrote: > On 12/13/16 10:29, Dimitry Andric wrote: > >> Somebody is most likely port scanning your machines. I see this all the >> time on boxes connected to the internet. > > As are mine. I wouldn't mind so much if the message contained sufficient > useful inf

Re: Log spam: Limiting * response from 1 to 200 packets/sec

2016-12-13 Thread Eric van Gyzen
On 12/13/2016 09:24, Michael Butler wrote: > Any hints as to why all of my -current equipment is complaining like below. Is > there a sysctl to moderate/turn this off? > > Dec 13 10:00:01 archive kernel: Limiting icmp unreach response from 1 to 200 > packets/sec > Dec 13 10:00:21 archive last mess

Re: Log spam: Limiting * response from 1 to 200 packets/sec

2016-12-13 Thread Michael Butler
On 12/13/16 10:29, Dimitry Andric wrote: Somebody is most likely port scanning your machines. I see this all the time on boxes connected to the internet. As are mine. I wouldn't mind so much if the message contained sufficient useful information that could be acted on, e.g. originating IP ad

Re: Log spam: Limiting * response from 1 to 200 packets/sec

2016-12-13 Thread Dimitry Andric
On 13 Dec 2016, at 16:24, Michael Butler wrote: > > Any hints as to why all of my -current equipment is complaining like below. Somebody is most likely port scanning your machines. I see this all the time on boxes connected to the internet. > Is there a sysctl to moderate/turn this off? > >

Log spam: Limiting * response from 1 to 200 packets/sec

2016-12-13 Thread Michael Butler
Any hints as to why all of my -current equipment is complaining like below. Is there a sysctl to moderate/turn this off? Dec 13 10:00:01 archive kernel: Limiting icmp unreach response from 1 to 200 packets/sec Dec 13 10:00:21 archive last message repeated 13 times Dec 13 10:02:21 archive last