On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Matthew Dempsky matt...@dempsky.org wrote:
For the time being, I'd suggest anyone concerned ensure ipcomp
processing is disabled; i.e., make sure sysctl
net.inet.ipcomp.enable is set to 0. (And like I said, it's disabled
by default.)
If there are any IPComp
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 05:42:21PM -0700, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
Does anyone use IPcomp and/or PPP-deflate? Would anyone be sad to see these
go?
They seem pretty busted right now (e.g., no userspace support for
enabling IPcomp, and sys/net/zlib.c is broken on 64-bit arches), and
there's
On 2011-04-01, Joachim Schipper joac...@joachimschipper.nl wrote:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 05:42:21PM -0700, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
Does anyone use IPcomp and/or PPP-deflate? Would anyone be sad to see these
go?
They seem pretty busted right now (e.g., no userspace support for
enabling
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 4:16 AM, Joachim Schipper
joac...@joachimschipper.nl wrote:
I'm not sure if you were aware of
http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2011/Apr/0? In any case, it might be
worth looking into.
Yeah. There are multiple reasons why we're not particularly at risk:
1. We
On 2011-04-01, Matthew Dempsky matt...@dempsky.org wrote:
Does anyone use IPcomp and/or PPP-deflate? Would anyone be sad to see these
go?
you can be more specific here actually - kernel ppp(4) deflate;
userland ppp(8) is a separate implementation.
They seem pretty busted right now (e.g., no
Does anyone use IPcomp and/or PPP-deflate? Would anyone be sad to see these go?
They seem pretty busted right now (e.g., no userspace support for
enabling IPcomp, and sys/net/zlib.c is broken on 64-bit arches), and
there's some doubt as to whether they're even worth the effort to fix.
6 matches
Mail list logo
