Re: Port 113 requests?

From: Valdis.Kletnieksat_private
Date: Thu Dec 06 2001 - 13:31:34 PST

  • Next message: Bryan Smith: "Anonymous FTP annoyance"

    On Thu, 06 Dec 2001 13:51:33 MST, "Slighter, Tim" <tslighterat_private>  said:
    > you really should try and specify that the rule "drops" instead of reject so
    > that the potential intruder is not provided with any information about their
    > attempted connection.
    
    On the other hand, you have to contrast "potential intruder" with "normal
    operations".  The intruders are (by and large) few and far between compared
    to the "normal operations" for some things.  I don't even want to *think*
    about how many inbound packets our Listserv gets per day on port 113 from
    Sendmails that are configured to AUTH-query their inbound connections.
    
    If you *reject*, you send an ICMP Port Unreachable, and the other end
    gives up immediately.  If you drop silently, they get to retransmit
    their SYN packet again a few times first.
    
    If it's a packet that a *lot* of things do (like AUTH - there's a large
    number of Sendmail/Tcp-Wrapper/etc out there that have been set up to
    do a port 113 lookup back by default), you may want to reject just so they
    know they can give up and continue on whatever regularly scheduled service
    was in progress.
    
    -- 
    				Valdis Kletnieks
    				Operating Systems Analyst
    				Virginia Tech
    
    
    
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Dec 08 2001 - 22:38:14 PST