nanog mailing list archives

Re: TCP vulnerability

From: "Tom (UnitedLayer)" <tom () unitedlayer com>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:04:59 -0700 (PDT)


On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Joe Abley wrote:

I suggest an extensive late-night BOF in San Francisco in the bar to
discuss the mechanics of adding MD5 keys to all your sessions in 48
hours.


Zeitgeist at 7pm or the Toronado at 9pm?

Current thread:

TCP vulnerability Grant A. Kirkwood (Apr 20)
- Re: TCP vulnerability Aviva Garrett (Apr 20)
  - Re: TCP vulnerability Joe Abley (Apr 20)
    - Re: TCP vulnerability Randy Bush (Apr 20)
    - Re: TCP vulnerability Joe Abley (Apr 20)
    - Re: TCP vulnerability Stephen Stuart (Apr 20)
    - Re: TCP vulnerability Tom (UnitedLayer) (Apr 20)
- Massive stupidity (Was: Re: TCP vulnerability) Richard A Steenbergen (Apr 20)
  - Re: Massive stupidity (Was: Re: TCP vulnerability) Sean Donelan (Apr 20)
  - Re: Massive stupidity (Was: Re: TCP vulnerability) Mike Tancsa (Apr 20)
    - Re: Massive stupidity (Was: Re: TCP vulnerability) Patrick W . Gilmore (Apr 20)
    - TCP/BGP vulnerability - easier than you think David Luyer (Apr 20)
    - Re: TCP/BGP vulnerability - easier than you think Patrick W . Gilmore (Apr 20)
    - Re: TCP/BGP vulnerability - easier than you think Rob Thomas (Apr 20)
    - Re: TCP/BGP vulnerability - easier than you think Joe Abley (Apr 20)
    - RE: TCP/BGP vulnerability - easier than you think David Luyer (Apr 20)
    - Re: TCP/BGP vulnerability - easier than you think Adam Rothschild (Apr 21)

(Thread continues...)