[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> With 64K source ports, you'll have collisions over 1% of the time at only 1024
> in use. With 8K in use, you're hitting collisions 12% of the time.
Good point. When collisions occur, as Thomas and I have pointed out,
the behavior of the NAT implementation is going to be
Thomas Cross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>We've also been wondering whether NAT devices ought to randomly assign
>UDP source ports, although no NAT vendor that wea**re aware of has done
>this to date.
Some quick testing implies that ipchains MASQUERADE-based NAT doesn't
suffer this prob
Niko Lilja <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>:() { :&:; } ;:
I've had that on a t-shirt and hat for years. (Actually, I think I gave
the hat to my now-ex-girlfriend.) This isn't new, nor is its solution,
viz., a sane ulimit policy.
-=rsw
___
Full-Discl
"morrisworm.com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Exactly 18 years ago the concept of buffer overflows and worms were
> brought to the public and the internet saw its first great panic.
...and one week ago, Robert Morris got tenure at MIT.
Congrats, RTM.
--
Riad S.
r the security industry is in such a sad state.
Please, go ahead and vote in broadcast to the list. At least then those
interested in free discourse will know which ones of you to blacklist.
--
Riad S. Wahby
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Full-Disclosure - We
s
basically the same setup that LNE did.
--
Riad S. Wahby
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
