Security Basics mailing list archives
Re: 0.0.0.0 Probes
From: Miles Stevenson <miles () mstevenson org>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 14:02:05 -0400
David, <snip>
These packets are not *to* 0.0.0.0; they just claim to be *from* there. Unless a router is specifically configured to check the source address for validity, it won't care. (The RFC passage you quote prevents attempts to *reply* to such packets from saturating the whole Internet.)
</snip> Agreed. Thank you for the correction.
"..SHOULD NOT originate datagrams addressed to 0.0.0.0".
Use of the words "originate" and "to" in the same phrase to represent traffic flow seems, at first glance, to be in conflict with each other, and is likely the source of my misinterpretation. Another example of the importance of semantics when then intention is to communicate accurately. -- Miles Stevenson miles () mstevenson org PGP FP: 035F 7D40 44A9 28FA 7453 BDF4 329F 889D 767D 2F63
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- 0.0.0.0 Probes John Smithson (Oct 21)
- Re: 0.0.0.0 Probes Miles Stevenson (Oct 22)
- RE: 0.0.0.0 Probes David Gillett (Oct 22)
- Re: 0.0.0.0 Probes Miles Stevenson (Oct 22)
- RE: 0.0.0.0 Probes Keith Bucknall (Oct 25)
- RE: 0.0.0.0 Probes xyberpix (Oct 26)
- RE: 0.0.0.0 Probes Fook Ming EE (Oct 26)
- RE: 0.0.0.0 Probes David Gillett (Oct 22)
- Re: 0.0.0.0 Probes Miles Stevenson (Oct 22)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: 0.0.0.0 Probes Jorge Reyes (Oct 22)
- RE: 0.0.0.0 Probes Shawn Jackson (Oct 22)
- 0.0.0.0 Probes John Smithson (Oct 25)