[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <486A3E42.9000009@trash.net>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 16:25:06 +0200
From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de>
CC: Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Passive OS fingerprinting.
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Tuesday 2008-07-01 15:08, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
>
>>>> I'm not sure it is that simple. OSF uses common rules database
>>>> shared with OpenBSD (and other *BSDs as well), so converting it into u32
>>>> match would require noticeble efforts. But in theory it is probably
>>>> doable.
>>>>
>>> This would be preferrable in my opinion since they both allow
>>> programmable filters, but u32 appears to be more flexible. I'm
>>> very reluctant to add new iptables modules that don't increase
>>> expressiveness or provide other clear benefits since we already
>>> have an insane amount of modules.
>>>
>
> An iptables extension which you can use with -m osf --genre Linux
> but which internally uses xt_u32.ko would be the perfect solution
> ATM IMO. It would require a number of changes to the iptables API
> though...
>
I agree that this would be much nicer. I assume you would either need
a way to associate multiple matches with a single userspace extension
or a much more intelligent parser in userspace?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists