Hello,
Thank you for your help!
The first option is working but we don't want such a big state table.
Another idea from us is:
Is it possible running a ruleset for port 53 udp/tcp and in/out completely
stateless?
Must we set some special flags?
Thank you
SC)bastien Maerker
--
SC)bastien Maerke
* Sebastien Maerker, Continum [2011-12-08
13:06]:
> The first option is working but we don't want such a big state table.
2? big? you gotta be kidding.
--
Henning Brauer, h...@bsws.de, henn...@openbsd.org
BS Web Services, http://bsws.de, Full-Service ISP
Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Servic
specialnoel
specialnoel
specialnoel
promocadeaux
promocadeaux
promocadeaux
noel
noel
noel
Si ce message ne s'affiche pas correctement, visualisez la version en
ligne.
Bonjour,
Nokl approche et vous n'avez pas commandi vos cadeaux publicitaires ?
Profitez de notre service extra-rapide : l
% bioctl -c 0 -l /dev/vnd0a,/dev/vnd1a softraid0
sd3 at scsibus targ2 lun0 SCSI2 0/direct
sd3: 123MB, 512 bytes/sector, 252672 sectors
panic: softraid0: sr_wu_put got active wu
<..>
ddb{0}> trace
Debugger() at Debugger+0x5
panic() at panic+0xe4
sr_wu_put() at sr_wu_put+0x12f
scsi_io_put() at scs
On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 05:23:47PM +0400, Alexander Polakov wrote:
> % bioctl -c 0 -l /dev/vnd0a,/dev/vnd1a softraid0
>
> sd3 at scsibus targ2 lun0 SCSI2 0/direct
> sd3: 123MB, 512 bytes/sector, 252672 sectors
>
> panic: softraid0: sr_wu_put got active wu
> <..>
> ddb{0}> trace
> Debugger() at D
* Kenneth R Westerback [111208 17:57]:
> On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 05:23:47PM +0400, Alexander Polakov wrote:
> > % bioctl -c 0 -l /dev/vnd0a,/dev/vnd1a softraid0
> >
> > sd3 at scsibus targ2 lun0 SCSI2 0/direct
> > sd3: 123MB, 512 bytes/sector, 252672 sectors
> >
> > panic: softraid0: sr_wu_put
On 08/12/11 12:01, Sebastien Maerker, Continum wrote:
> Another idea from us is:
> Is it possible running a ruleset for port 53 udp/tcp and in/out completely
> stateless?
Hi,
I agree it seems strange to keep state for the 'stateless' DNS UDP
protocol. I would be concerned at how easily an attack
* Steven Chamberlain [2011-12-08 16:31]:
> On 08/12/11 12:01, Sebastien Maerker, Continum wrote:
> > Another idea from us is:
> > Is it possible running a ruleset for port 53 udp/tcp and in/out completely
> > stateless?
> I agree it seems strange to keep state for the 'stateless' DNS UDP
> protoco
