Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*ECN\:\s+Clearing\s+the\s+air\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*ECN\:\s+Clearing\s+the\s+air\s*$/: 14 ]

Total 14 documents matching your query.

1. ECN: Clearing the air (score: 1): Author: emlin" <vii@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 19:05:38 -0500 (EST); T; /archives/netdev/2001-01/msg00320.html (11,305 bytes)
2. Re: ECN: Clearing the air (score: 1): Author: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 19:23:51 -0500 (EST); e; /archives/netdev/2001-01/msg00321.html (7,956 bytes)
3. Re: ECN: Clearing the air (score: 1): Author: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 15:08:13 +1300; ,; /archives/netdev/2001-01/msg00322.html (8,200 bytes)
4. Re: ECN: Clearing the air (score: 1): Author: Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 21:15:48 -0500 (EST); i; /archives/netdev/2001-01/msg00323.html (8,310 bytes)
5. Re: ECN: Clearing the air (score: 1): Author: on <andrewm@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 22:55:30 +0100; 2; /archives/netdev/2001-01/msg00330.html (8,868 bytes)
6. Re: ECN: Clearing the air (score: 1): Author: rle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 17:21:55 +0100; y; /archives/netdev/2001-01/msg00333.html (8,461 bytes)
7. Re: ECN: Clearing the air (score: 1): Author: <ionut@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 21:11:01 -0500 (EST); e; /archives/netdev/2001-01/msg00341.html (7,967 bytes)
8. ECN: Clearing the air (score: 1): Author: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 19:05:38 -0500 (EST); I think there is some serious misinformation going on here. Hopefully, this will straighten things out: - ECN is not a standard that DaveM came up with, or some cabal within the Linux community pulle; /archives/netdev/2001-01/msg00709.html (11,305 bytes)
9. Re: ECN: Clearing the air (score: 1): Author: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 19:23:51 -0500 (EST); should proof read before posting. The intrusion detection expert suggested blocking ECN. Article at: http://www.securityfocus.com/frames/?focus=ids&content=/focus/ids/articles /portscan.html cheers,; /archives/netdev/2001-01/msg00710.html (8,019 bytes)
10. Re: ECN: Clearing the air (score: 1): Author: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 15:08:13 +1300; suggested blocking ECN. Article at: http://www.securityfocus.com/frames/?focus=ids&content=/focus/ids/articles/portscan.html the site is now ATM -- can someone briefly explain the logic in blocking i; /archives/netdev/2001-01/msg00711.html (8,399 bytes)
11. Re: ECN: Clearing the air (score: 1): Author: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 21:15:48 -0500 (EST); It is Queso they quoted not nmap, sorry -- same thing. The idea is to "detect" port scanners. Queso sets the two TCP reserved bits in the SYN (now allocated for ECN). Some OSes reflect that back in t; /archives/netdev/2001-01/msg00712.html (8,353 bytes)
12. Re: ECN: Clearing the air (score: 1): Author: Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 22:55:30 +0100; Hi! Does not that mean that Linux 2.0.10 mistakenly announces it is ECN capable when offered ECN connection? Pavel -- I'm pavel@xxxxxxx "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care." Panos; /archives/netdev/2001-01/msg00719.html (9,007 bytes)
13. Re: ECN: Clearing the air (score: 1): Author: Walter Hofmann <walter.hofmann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 17:21:55 +0100; No, the RFC deals with this. Walter; /archives/netdev/2001-01/msg00722.html (8,634 bytes)
14. Re: ECN: Clearing the air (score: 1): Author: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 21:11:01 -0500 (EST); In fact it does. But as someone mentioned, ECN is resilient to this. i.e this will be trapped and no ECN connection will happen. For historical purposes, let it be noted that it was the Linux ECN imp; /archives/netdev/2001-01/msg00730.html (7,995 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 14
Page: [1]