On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, Perry Harrington wrote: > In short, yes security through obscurity is dumb, but calling for people to change > this functionality is unwarranted when machines can be firewalled. > Actually to me this sounds more like an excuse NOT to fix the problem simply because it's "industry standard". Sometimes standards need to be looked at and revamped. In this case it's one that would affect the industry as a whole. Are you calling for advisories only simply because the workload would be tremendous or because you truly believe that fixing this would affect nothing? --- David D.W. Downey - RHCE Consulting Engineer Ensim Corporation [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP stack. Woody
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP ... Elias Levy
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP ... Kyle Sparger
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP ... Perry Harrington
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP... ddowney
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in... Perry Harrington
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing fla... Ben Laurie
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routin... Perry Harrington
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed ro... Ben Laurie
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing fla... Dan Harkless
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP... ddowney
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP... John Cronin
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP ... Neil W Rickert