Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      09 Jan 2001 11:12:02 +0100
From:      Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org>
To:        cjclark@alum.mit.edu
Cc:        Marc Silver <marcs@draenor.org>, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: What do these mean?
Message-ID:  <xzpd7dxghl9.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
In-Reply-To: "Crist J. Clark"'s message of "Tue, 9 Jan 2001 00:31:07 -0800"
References:  <20010109084540.Y94766@draenor.org> <20010108234245.J95729@rfx-64-6-211-149.users.reflexco> <20010109094650.C94766@draenor.org> <20010109003107.R95729@rfx-64-6-211-149.users.reflexco>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Crist J. Clark" <cjclark@reflexnet.net> writes:
> Pretty much the best reason I can give is because that is just how it
> works. Perhaps it is best to look at it this way, what would
> "removing" them from the list gain you besides prettier output?

There's a hard limit on the number of dynamic rules.

This isn't the only bogosity related to dynamic rules in ipfw; for
instance, 'ipfw list' always lists *all* dynamic rules even if you
specify a rule number on the command line (it should only display
dynamic rules which were created by the rules listed on the command
line). Unfortunately, ipfw(8) is so poorly written that it's not at
all trivial to fix.

DES
-- 
Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.org


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzpd7dxghl9.fsf>