mailing list archives
Re: Ambiguities in TCP/IP - firewall bypassing
From: Alun Jones <alun () texis com>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 16:28:25 -0500
At 03:55 PM 10/18/2002, Benjamin Krueger wrote:
One could also make a case for continuing to abide by the cardinal
rule "Be permissive in what you accept, and strict in what you send".
Tough call, but its difficult to justify describing stacks that are
permissive as "highly bogus" or "lazy" given that being permissive in
what you accept is an established notion.
If a usage makes any kind of sense, then it has usually been allowed.
Compliant by the letter, if questionably in spirit. I'm not aware of any
tcp client systems that would send SynFin in the real world, so a stack
that responded with RST could arguably be "more" correct (for example).
Not necessarily. Have you heard of T/TCP? Before that was around, I
remember hearing discussion of using a packet with SYN, FIN, and data all
in one, to cut down on round-trips in really short communications, while
still providing reliability.
One of the lessons you learn when writing / reading RFC material is that
"there are more things on heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
your philosophy" (or thereabouts). Just because _you_ don't see a use for
a feature, that doesn't mean to say that someone else won't / can't, and
specifically, it isn't usually worth limiting a protocol for the rather
arbitrary reason that you can't see how a feature would be used.
Texas Imperial Software | Try WFTPD, the Windows FTP Server. Find us at
1602 Harvest Moon Place | http://www.wftpd.com or email alun () texis com
Cedar Park TX 78613-1419 | VISA/MC accepted. NT-based sites, be sure to
Fax/Voice +1(512)258-9858 | read details of WFTPD Pro for NT.
Re: Ambiguities in TCP/IP - firewall bypassing Florian Weimer (Oct 19)
Re: Ambiguities in TCP/IP - firewall bypassing David Wagner (Oct 19)