| To: | Giuliano Pochini <pochini@xxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: tcp vulnerability? haven't seen anything on it here... |
| From: | jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | 22 Apr 2004 09:22:16 -0400 |
| Cc: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, cfriesen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Jörn Engel <joern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <XFMail.20040422102359.pochini@shiny.it> |
| Organization: | jamalopolis |
| References: | <XFMail.20040422102359.pochini@shiny.it> |
| Reply-to: | hadi@xxxxxxxxxx |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Thu, 2004-04-22 at 04:23, Giuliano Pochini wrote: > Yes, but it is possible, expecially for long sessions. In other words, 80% or more of internet traffic would not be affected still using http1.0 would not be affected. And for something like a huge download to just regular joe, this is more of a nuisance assuming some kiddie has access between you and the server. OTOH, long lived BGP sessions are affected assuming you are going across hostile path to your peer. So whats all this ado about nothing? Local media made it appear we are all about to die. Is anyone working on some fix? cheers, jamal |
| Previous by Date: | Re: IMQ / new Dummy device post., jamal |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: tcp vulnerability? haven't seen anything on it here..., Florian Weimer |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: tcp vulnerability? haven't seen anything on it here..., David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | Re: tcp vulnerability? haven't seen anything on it here..., Giuliano Pochini |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |