netdev
[Top] [All Lists]
<prev [Date] next>
[Advanced]
 <prev [Thread] next>

Re: syncookie monsters ?

from [Petru Paler] [Permanent Link][Original]
To: kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: syncookie monsters ?
From: Petru Paler <ppetru@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 22:18:02 +0200
Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <200102162015.XAA07506@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 11:15:45PM +0300
References: <20010216213948.F1900@xxxxxxxxxx> <200102162015.XAA07506@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.14i 
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 11:15:45PM +0300, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > So they have no use in defeating SYN flood attacks ?
> 
> Sorry? They are useful for this, only for this. Otherwise,
> why to enable them? 8)

That's what I thought too; I didn't get your affirmation regarding
signs of misconfiguration, though.

--
Petru Paler, mailto:ppetru@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.ppetru.net - ICQ: 41817235
[More with this subject...]
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Previous by Date:  Re: syncookie monsters ?, kuznet
Next by Date:  Re: syncookie monsters ?, kuznet
Previous by Thread:  Re: syncookie monsters ?, kuznet
Next by Thread:  Re: syncookie monsters ?, kuznet
Indexes:  [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]