At 6:07 AM -0700 1/8/03, Warren Michelsen imposed structure on a
stream of electrons, yielding:
At 8:30 PM -0500 01/07/2003, Bill Cole wrote:
Let's think about this logically. The setting on your backup cannot
change the behavior of your primary,
I didn't think so either. I was not aware of *anything* I could do
on a secondary to change the way it is treated by the primary,
however...
so 2 possibilities exist:
1. The secondary is offering the relay test message in some way
that is different from how any relay tester would try directly, and
so is finding a hole in the primary that the relay tester cannot
find itself. Perhaps something in the router?
2. The primary is treating the secondary as special, and so
allowing the relay.
3. The secondary is treating the primary as special...?
That doesn't matter. It's the primary that completes the relay. A
config change on the secondary cannot modify how the primary behaves.
As posted to the list earlier, it may be that when a secondary lists
the primary as a client host, it somehow obtains special treatment.
Anyone care to test this theory?
If true, is this a vulnerability? Could I, for example, list Paul's
primary as a trusted host on my secondary and relay through his
primary?
It would be a huge vulnerability, but it's logically impossible.
--
Bill Cole
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
the mailing list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Send administrative queries to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
