On Wed, 2003-12-03 at 07:44, Mike Noyes wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-12-03 at 03:30, Henning Jebsen wrote:
> > On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 19:05, Tom Eastep wrote:
> > > As announced today on the Shorewall User's list, I am no longer involved
> > > in Shorewall support.
> >
> > Uh ? This is very sad. You are no
On Wed, 2003-12-03 at 03:30, Henning Jebsen wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 19:05, Tom Eastep wrote:
> > As announced today on the Shorewall User's list, I am no longer involved
> > in Shorewall support.
>
> Uh ? This is very sad. You are not supporting it anymore at all?
> Are there some news on sh
As announced today on the Shorewall User's list, I am no longer involved
in Shorewall support.
Uh ? This is very sad. You are not supporting it anymore at all?
Are there some news on shorewall.net ?
Is time getting too short, to support shorewall ?
greetings !
-
"Mike Noyes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Shorewall Users" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "leaf-user" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 10:38 AM
Subject: [leaf-user] SucKIT root-kit
> Tom,
> Is Shorewall capable of blocking/logging/detect
On Tuesday 02 December 2003 10:04 pm, Mike Noyes wrote:
> Ah. This is what I was looking for. So, there is probably a rule that
> can be generated to stop spoofed packets from egressing the protected
> LAN.
There is spoof-protection enabled in the kernel (per Dachstein anyway).
IIRC, the compromis
On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 19:39, Tom Eastep wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Tom Eastep wrote:
> > Shorewall currently does no checking for spoofed output packets (and
> > probably won't in the future).
>
> By "output", I mean packets originating on the firewall itself. If the
> firewall system itself is
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Tom Eastep wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Mike Noyes wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 17:57, Joey Officer wrote:
> > > At face value, and without (intending to) sounding like a moron, Shorewall
> > > can block anything you tell it not to explicitly allow. Isn't that the
> > >
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Mike Noyes wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 17:57, Joey Officer wrote:
> > At face value, and without (intending to) sounding like a moron, Shorewall
> > can block anything you tell it not to explicitly allow. Isn't that the
> > default way its currently being used?
>
As announ
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 10:38 AM
> Subject: [leaf-user] SucKIT root-kit
>
>
> > Tom,
> > Is Shorewall capable of blocking/logging/detecting the spoofed packet
> > SucKIT uses?
> >
> >
> > http://lists.debian
To: "Shorewall Users" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "leaf-user" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 10:38 AM
Subject: [leaf-user] SucKIT root-kit
> Tom,
> Is Shorewall capable of blocking/logging/detecting the spoofed packet
> SucKIT uses?
>
On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 08:38, Mike Noyes wrote:
> Tom,
> Is Shorewall capable of blocking/logging/detecting the spoofed packet
> SucKIT uses?
I haven't a clue.
-Tom
--
Tom Eastep\ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool
Shoreline, \ http://shorewall.net
Washington USA \ [EMA
Tom,
Is Shorewall capable of blocking/logging/detecting the spoofed packet
SucKIT uses?
http://lists.debian.org/debian-announce/debian-announce-2003/msg3.html
SucKIT is a root-kit presented in Phrack issue 58, article 0x07
("Linux on-the-fly kernel patching without LKM", by sd & devik
12 matches
Mail list logo
