From owner-freebsd-security  Mon May 24  9: 8:20 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Received: from verdi.nethelp.no (verdi.nethelp.no [158.36.41.162])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CA00615452
	for <security@FreeBSD.ORG>; Mon, 24 May 1999 09:08:16 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from sthaug@nethelp.no)
Received: (qmail 32726 invoked by uid 1001); 24 May 1999 16:08:15 +0000 (GMT)
To: nate@mt.sri.com
Cc: security@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Denial of service attack from "imagelock.com"
From: sthaug@nethelp.no
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 24 May 1999 10:03:17 -0600"
References: <199905241603.KAA11763@mt.sri.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 1.05+ on Emacs 19.34.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 18:08:15 +0200
Message-ID: <32724.927562095@verdi.nethelp.no>
Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

> DES, you don't know what you're talking about.  A ping doesn't require
> UDP, but traceroute certainly coes.

DES pointed out that the current FreeBSD traceroute doesn't require
UDP, but can also run over TCP. This is certainly a valid point, but
since the traceroute that *most* users will have access to does indeed
use UDP, I'd say that "bullshit" is a bit too strong...

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no


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