hello, know if the TCP silly window syndrome might be used too ? Uploading/downloading files byte per byte to/from a remote ftp server with a stupid window size of one byte may generate a very high overhead. My tanenbaum book say that Clark solution consists in avoiding sender (attacker) from sending window size notification till his buffer is egal to the initial mss value *OR* half empty. so using a buffer size of one byte may theoricaly result in a notification storm and a great bandwidth waste due to a large amount of headers. Defining a buffer size of one byte is made possible by using specific socket options (SO_SNDBUF/SO_RCVBUF/SO_SNDLOWAT/SO_RCVLOWAT) with setsockopt() did someone here already try it ? cheers, Gregory _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
- Small TCP packets == very large overhead == DoS? Darren Reed
- Re: Small TCP packets == very large overhead == DoS? Darren Reed
- RE: Small TCP packets == very large overhead == DoS? David LeBlanc
- Re: Small TCP packets == very large overhead == DoS? Pavel Machek
- Re: Small TCP packets == very large overhead == DoS? Eric Vyncke
- RE: Small TCP packets == very large overhead == DoS? Russ
- Re: Small TCP packets == very large overhead == ... Darren Reed
- RE: Small TCP packets == very large overhead... David LeBlanc
- Re: Small TCP packets == very large overhead == DoS? gregory duchemin
- Re: Small TCP packets == very large overhead == DoS? Darren Reed
- Re: Small TCP packets == very large overhead == ... John Kristoff
- Re: Small TCP packets == very large overhead == ... Brett Lymn
- RE: Small TCP packets == very large overhead == DoS? Franck Martin
- Re: Small TCP packets == very large overhead == DoS? Crist Clark