bugtraq - Re: 11 years of inetd default insecurity?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 10:26:24 +1000 (EST)
From: psz@...hs.usyd.edu.au (Paul Szabo)
To: 3APA3A@...URITY.NNOV.RU, bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
Subject: Re:  11 years of inetd default insecurity?

3APA3A <3APA3A@...URITY.NNOV.RU> wrote:

> III. Details
> 
> Inetd has an option
>      -R rate ... default is 256 ...
> ... if more than 256 connections received in one minute [inetd] will
> disable service for next 10 minutes ...
> ... IP address of attacker will never be logged.
> 
> IV. Workaround
> 
> -R 0 -s your_ad_can_be_here

I guess you are trying to say that xinetd is more configurable than inetd.
Yes, it is known that with inetd you need tcp_wrappers to log attack IPs.

Your cure is worse than the disease: rate limiting allows a DoS against the
service, no limit allows a DoS against the whole machine.

Cheers,

Paul Szabo - psz@...hs.usyd.edu.au  http://www.maths.usyd.edu.au:8000/u/psz/
School of Mathematics and Statistics  University of Sydney   2006  Australia