[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <200309080026.h880QOc114306@milan.maths.usyd.edu.au>
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists