Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 11:03:17 -0600
From: Aleph One <aleph1@DFW.NET>
To: BUGTRAQ@netspace.org
Subject: Re: nestea v2 against freebsd 3.0-Release
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 00:33:30 -0800
From: Don Lewis <Don.Lewis@tsc.tdk.com>
To: Fedor Gubarev <Fedor.Gubarev@itep.ru>,
freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: nestea v2 against freebsd 3.0-Release
On Oct 27, 9:46am, Fedor Gubarev wrote:
} Subject: Re: nestea v2 against freebsd 3.0-Release
}
} I wonder why there is no response at all on this mail.
} It seems a little bit surprising at least.....
I posted a couple of potential patches for this to the -current
list about 24 and 48 hours ago. The following is the first patch
(the second has the same fix plus some optimization).
--- ip_input.c.orig Fri Oct 23 02:17:19 1998
+++ ip_input.c Sun Oct 25 01:50:20 1998
@@ -750,7 +750,7 @@
* if they are completely covered, dequeue them.
*/
for (; q != NULL && ip->ip_off + ip->ip_len > GETIP(q)->ip_off;
- p = q, q = nq) {
+ q = nq) {
i = (ip->ip_off + ip->ip_len) -
GETIP(q)->ip_off;
if (i < GETIP(q)->ip_len) {
} On Fri, 23 Oct 1998, Gilles Bruno <Gilles.Bruno@ujf-grenoble.fr>
} wrote:
}
} > Hi everyone,
} > we tested yesterday the old nestea v2 against a brand new
} > 3.0-Release : it has prooved to be effective against it
} > (the box rebooted - invalid page fault while in kernel
} > mode). The same test against 2.2.[6,7]-Release didn't harm
} > at all.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
