netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: ECN: Clearing the air

To: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>, Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: ECN: Clearing the air
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 22:55:30 +0100
Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.GSO.4.30.0101272110470.24762-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from jamal on Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 09:15:48PM -0500
References: <20010128150813.A1595@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.GSO.4.30.0101272110470.24762-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Hi!

> >     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 it?
> 
> 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 the SYN-ACK (Linux < 2.0.2? for example
> was such a culprit).

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 Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>