netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v4 0/3] path mtu hardening patches

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

Date:	Mon, 13 Jan 2014 23:48:35 +0100
From:	Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
To:	John Heffner <johnwheffner@...il.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	steffen.klassert@...unet.com, fweimer@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 0/3] path mtu hardening patches

Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 11:03:56PM +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> > I really don't like to depend on firewalling to do that. Especially on
> > big routers one can use the routing table to protect interfaces for
> > management and thus don't need to introduce stateful firewalling to
> > realize a secure router setup which could cause performance degradation,
> > especially with lots of small and shortlived flows (e.g. UDP/DNS).
> 
> This may get better if maybe some work is put into bringing this patch
> forward: http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/268758

Jesper Brouer is working on this.

But, why do you even need stateful firewalling for filtering?
Isn't -m socket enough?

[ sorry if you already explained, might have missed it when search
archive ]
--
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