On 3/16/07, Karel Kulhavy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 11:52:44AM +0100, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 10:26:23AM +, Gaby Vanhegan wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Reading the security advisory for the ipv6 buffer issue, the
> > workaround is to block inet6 traffi
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 09:48:19AM +0100, Karel Kulhavy wrote:
> I have put block in inet6 into my /etc/pf.conf. Do I need to do anything
> else (turn something on somewhere else) or does it already protect against
> the overflow? How can I test that the protection really works? Is there
> somewher
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 11:52:44AM +0100, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 10:26:23AM +, Gaby Vanhegan wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Reading the security advisory for the ipv6 buffer issue, the
> > workaround is to block inet6 traffic in pf.conf. My default block
> > line is actual
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 10:26:23AM +, Gaby Vanhegan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Reading the security advisory for the ipv6 buffer issue, the
> workaround is to block inet6 traffic in pf.conf. My default block
> line is actually:
>
> block in on $ext_if
>
> Where $ext_if is the net connection (the
Hi,
Reading the security advisory for the ipv6 buffer issue, the
workaround is to block inet6 traffic in pf.conf. My default block
line is actually:
block in on $ext_if
Where $ext_if is the net connection (the only network connection the
machine is plugged into). Is the rule:
block in i
5 matches
Mail list logo