On Jan 10, 12:05am, Wes Peters wrote:
} Subject: Re: Spoofing multicast addresses
} The real problem with the "stream" attack was not the volume of incoming
} SYN packets, but the reflector nature of the attack when using forged
} multicast source addresses. The code did not correct
On Jan 10, 1:13am, Mike Silbersack wrote:
} Subject: Re: Spoofing multicast addresses
}
} On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Wes Peters wrote:
}
} > Don Lewis wrote:
} > > A good reason for putting these checks in their present location is
} > > that it gets them out of the main code path
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Wes Peters wrote:
> Don Lewis wrote:
> > A good reason for putting these checks in their present location is
> > that it gets them out of the main code path. Under normal circumstances,
> > the vast majority of the incoming packets will be for established
> > connections an
Don Lewis wrote:
>
> [ freebsd-net added ]
>
> On Jan 9, 6:58pm, Wes Peters wrote:
> } Subject: Re: Spoofing multicast addresses
> } Mike Silbersack wrote:
> } >
> } > The check is done when the SYN is received, hence such a situation as you
> } >
[ freebsd-net added ]
On Jan 9, 6:58pm, Wes Peters wrote:
} Subject: Re: Spoofing multicast addresses
} Mike Silbersack wrote:
} >
} > The check is done when the SYN is received, hence such a situation as you
} > describe should not be able to occur.
} >
} > &g
