* Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: 
> * Martin Schulze:
> 
> >> > What was the behaviour pre-sarge?
> >> > What is the behaviour post-sarge (or rather in sarge)?
> >> 
> >> Do you mean "before and after the upstream security update"?  The
> >> terms pre-sarge/post-sarge do not make much sense to me in this
> >> context, I'm afraid.
> >
> > Ok, so when did the behaviour change?
> 
> Upstream's security update changed the behavior, from "vulnerable" to
> "non-vulnerable", if you want.
> 
> > Which behaviour is documented and hence expected?
> 
> Like most software, shorewall comes with no formalized descriptions of
> its semantics.  The exact behavior of the MAC verification feature is
> not documented because the documentation writer seemd to assume that
> it went without saying.  So what goes without saying?  As far as I can
> see, something like this: MAC verification is a further restriction
> which is performed in addition to the usual filtering rules, and not
> intended to replace it.  After all, it's called "verification" and not
> "bypass".

In my mind the semantic of  MAC verification is: a further policy
restriction that can be used to restrict access to a few clients based
on their MAC addresses.

> So, to answer your question: Users expect that MAC verification never
> makes the filter policy less restrictive.  This is not the case if you
> set MACLIST_DISPOSITION to ACCEPT or MACLIST_TTL to a non-zero value.
> 
> > Which behaviour is experienced by potentially buggy code?
> 
> Buggy results?  Sorry, I don't understand this question.
> 
> >> (Note that I have yet to test Lorenzo's new package.)
> >
> > Are you in a position to do so?
> 
> Sure, but the question is if you want to rely on the results.  You
> don't seem to trust my judgement on this matter, for reasons I don't
> know.

The patch has been tested by me and by Paul Gear but further tests will
be better, so your feedback will be very precious. 

-- lorenzo



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to