| To: | sim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Route cache performance under stress |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 19 May 2003 18:14:05 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | hadi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20030520011053.GB10419@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <Pine.LNX.4.51.0305191408490.1795@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030519154852.I39024@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030520011053.GB10419@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: Simon Kirby <sim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 18:10:53 -0700 I doubt we have been the target of any hashing-specific attacks. I bet you have been, the weakness in the hash has been very well publicized and the script kiddies aren't using the truly random version of the attacks anymore. Just google for juno-z.101f.c, this (or some derivative) is the DoS people attack program are actually using. It was the only major place where the routing cache was weak performance wise. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, Simon Kirby |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, Jamal Hadi |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, Simon Kirby |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, Jamal Hadi |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |