Bugtraq mailing list archives

Re: Router filtering not enough! (Was: Re: CERT advisory )

From: pst () cisco com (Paul Traina)
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 10:11:03 -0800

How hard would it be to modify tcpwraper (for example) to check the
incomming MAC address on a connection and to be worried if it came from a
list of routers but the address was the local net?


This breaks people who might have their netmasks set incorrectly on the local
net.

Current thread:

Re: Router filtering not enough! (Was: Re: CERT advisory ) Dave Mitchell (Jan 26)
- Re: Router filtering not enough! (Was: Re: CERT advisory ) Jonathan M. Bresler (Jan 26)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Router filtering not enough! (Was: Re: CERT advisory ) Jon Peatfield (Jan 26)
  - Re: Router filtering not enough! (Was: Re: CERT advisory ) Paul Traina (Jan 26)
    - Would an encrypted tunnel solve the SeqNo guessing attack? Bennett Todd (Jan 26)
    - Re: Would an encrypted tunnel solve the SeqNo guessing attack? Mark (Jan 26)
    - Loaded system no protection. Leo Bicknell (Jan 27)
    - Re: Would an encrypted tunnel solve the SeqNo guessing attack? Marc Tamsky (Jan 27)
    - Re: Would an encrypted tunnel solve the SeqNo guessing attack? Paul Robinson (Jan 27)
    - Very Confused!! Mohamad A Khatoun (Jan 27)
    - Notes from Tsutomo's Talk Michael B. Dilger (Jan 26)
    - Re: Router filtering not enough! (Was: Re: CERT advisory ) Pete Shipley (Jan 26)
    - Re: Router filtering not enough! (Was: Re: CERT advisory ) Jon Peatfield (Jan 27)
    - Re: Router filtering not enough! (Was: Re: CERT advisory ) Aleph One (Jan 31)

(Thread continues...)