man page patch to fix (based on the git page).

- explicit-exit-notify text is misleading : parameter [n] is the number of attempts not the number of retries

- I would make a statement that a section starting with 'so I would make a statement' does not belong in a man page


--- new-openvpn.8    2010-04-16 19:16:08.427860657 +0200
+++ jjk-openvpn.8    2010-04-16 19:46:01.374609848 +0200
@@ -3308,8 +3308,8 @@
option will tell the server to immediately close its client instance object
rather than waiting for a timeout.  The
.B n
-parameter (default=1) controls the maximum number of retries that the client
-will attempt to resend the exit notification message.
+parameter (default=1) controls the maximum number of attempts that the client
+will make to send the exit notification message.
.\"*********************************************************
.SS Data Channel Encryption Options:
These options are meaningful for both Static & TLS-negotiated key modes
@@ -3591,7 +3591,7 @@
OpenVPN adds to the IPSec model by limiting the window size in time as well as
sequence space.

-OpenVPN also adds TCP transport as an option (not offered by IPSec) in which +OpenVPN also adds TCP transport as an option (not offered by plain IPSec) in which
case OpenVPN can adopt a very strict attitude towards message deletion and
reordering:  Don't allow it.  Since TCP guarantees reliability, any packet
loss or reordering event can be assumed to be an attack.
@@ -3601,11 +3601,6 @@
message deletion or reordering attack which falls within the normal
operational parameters of IP networks.

-So I would make the statement that one should never tunnel a non-IP protocol -or UDP application protocol over UDP, if the protocol might be vulnerable to a -message deletion or reordering attack that falls within the normal operating -parameters of what is to be expected from the physical IP layer. The problem
-is easily fixed by simply using TCP as the VPN transport layer.
.\"*********************************************************
.TP
.B \-\-mute-replay-warnings


Reply via email to