North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Reporting Little Blue Men
On Thu, Jan 22, 1998 at 10:21:46AM -0800, Justin W. Newton wrote: > At 11:41 AM 1/22/98 -0500, Eric Osborne wrote: > >In other words, I can't prevent my customers from sending packets to > >a broadcast address, esp. on a subnet smaller than /24. You might be > >able to block outgoing packets for destination x.y.z.255, but if you've got > >a mask >/24 (/23, etc..), couldn't .255 be a valid host address? > > Yes, it could be, actually. I tried to use it as WAN pool address once > though and it horrendously confused the RAS, as well as several UNIX boxen > on the network. Yes, it could be, but let's remember; isn't the smurf attack the one that _depends_ on a forged _source_ IP address in order to "work"? Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth [email protected] Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Two words: Darth Doogie." -- Jason Colby, Tampa Bay, Florida on alt.fan.heinlein +1 813 790 7592
|