Doesn't fix Imre's original problem :) I haven't had a chance to look into this yet though.
--Bill On 10/24/05, Frimmel, Ivan (ISS South Africa) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Agreed topic dropped. The passive approach seems safer. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Buechler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 4:23 PM > To: support@pfsense.com > Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Diagnostics: DHCP leases v0.88 > > Frimmel, Ivan (ISS South Africa) wrote: > > >Again from IP 101(many years back so I could be wrong ) What about > >pinging the broadcast .. This should highlight some less talkative ips > >on the local subnet ? And localise icmp traffic .. Ideal for small > >networks ? > > > > Nope. Most machines don't respond to pings to the broadcast address > anymore, for good reason. The old "smurf" attack used this, amongst > other mischief, so most well-behaved network stacks won't respond to > such crap. From some quick tests, looks like around 10-20% of network > hosts will respond, mostly printers and similar equipment. > > Pinging from the firewall, no matter how you do it, is a *bad idea*. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional > commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
