Snort mailing list archives
RE: TCP Reset
From: michael.porter () hushmail com
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 08:57:26 -0500 (EDT)
Two follow-up questions on the effectiveness of TCP Reset. In an earlier mail John Lampe wrote:
It's useless (in some instances, more than useless) against SYN-floods,
Do you mean that TCP Reset can actually cause potential damage during some SYN Floods? Could you explain? >>can it actually prevent the buffer overflow?
Yes, as long as the snort engine can note the signature (shellcode, NOP's, whatever) and RST the connection before the payload has been delivered.
Can the RST packet from Snort -which comes after the attack packet(s) - actually nullify the effect of the payload? Doesn't the server socket pass the payload to the application, before it handles the reset? Or am I getting something wrong here? Has anybody actually succeeded RST-ing a buffer overflow? Thanks, Michael Free, encrypted, secure Web-based email at www.hushmail.com
Current thread:
- TCP Reset michael . porter (May 19)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: TCP Reset Frank Knobbe (May 19)
- RE: TCP Reset Lampe, John W. (May 19)
- RE: TCP Reset michael . porter (May 20)
- Re: TCP Reset Andreas Hasenack (May 20)
- RE: TCP Reset Lampe, John W. (May 20)
- RE: TCP Reset michael . porter (May 20)
- RE: TCP Reset Erik Engberg (May 22)