Monday, September 8, 2003, 11:11:12 PM, you wrote:
>>
>> -s limits number of processes invoked from same IP. You can additionally
>> use -c to prevent distributed attack. It doesn't allow to DoS box and
>> doesn't disable service for 10 minutes.
PS> Note that my (DEC/Compaq/HP Tru64) inetd does not have -c or -s options.
PS> The only safe way is to use a sensible -R and tcp_wrappers. Or upgrade to
PS> Linux and xinetd...
It proofs code needs to be rewritten. I don't understand why limitation
is on per minute, not per second base. Oh no - I understand. This is
result of the code was written more than 10 years ago. But what I
completely misunderstand is how disabling service for 10 minutes
increases security. It's because I'm green, stupid and brain damaged.
IMHO reasonable behavior is limiting a number of requests accepted per
second without disabling service. But this code became a kind of saint
cow. Only hope is young monsters like xinetd will rid this dinosaur off
as a result of evolution.
Monday, September 8, 2003, 11:11:12 PM, you wrote:
>>
>> -s limits number of processes invoked from same IP. You can additionally
>> use -c to prevent distributed attack. It doesn't allow to DoS box and
>> doesn't disable service for 10 minutes.
PS> Note that my (DEC/Compaq/HP Tru64) inetd does not have -c or -s options.
PS> The only safe way is to use a sensible -R and tcp_wrappers. Or upgrade to
PS> Linux and xinetd...
It proofs code needs to be rewritten. I don't understand why limitation
is on per minute, not per second base. Oh no - I understand. This is
result of the code was written more than 10 years ago. But what I
completely misunderstand is how disabling service for 10 minutes
increases security. It's because I'm green, stupid and brain damaged.
IMHO reasonable behavior is limiting a number of requests accepted per
second without disabling service. But this code became a kind of saint
cow. Only hope is young monsters like xinetd will rid this dinosaur off
as a result of evolution.
--
/3APA3A
[ reply ]