netdev - Re: Traceroute and "ping" sockets: some questions

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]

Message-ID: <4E4E6B8A.1030707@odu.neva.ru>
Date:	Fri, 19 Aug 2011 17:56:26 +0400
From:	Dmitry Butskoy <buc@...sz.so-cdu.ru>
To:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Traceroute and "ping" sockets: some questions

David Miller wrote:
>>> Why limit?  He can spam with UDP socket just as easily at any rate
>>> he pleases,
>>>        
>> Yes, but most cases such UDP is "one-way" spam (until services like
>> "echo 7/udp" are enabled).
>> For icmp echo, we normally receive icmp replies, hence it is
>> bidirectional crap. Which was not present before.
>>      
> Well, replace UDP with TCP syn flood.
>    

Well.

Why then there is "net/ipv4/ping_group_range" restrictions, with default 
values (low=1, high=0) which denies this way even for root?


Regards,
Dmitry
--
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