mailing list archives
Re: ICMP (was: daily internet traffic report)
From: James Edwards <hackerwacker () cybermesa com>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 16:35:13 -0600
On Sun, 2004-10-17 at 15:46, Cedric Blancher wrote:
Le dim 17/10/2004 Ã 22:21, James Edwards a Ã©crit :
So, blocking ***all*** ICMP ***types*** is bad but you can block some
***types*** without getting into trouble. Till you understand that all
the types do in relation to networking I would leave the alone.
Nowadays, using a decent stateful firewall allows one to get rid of ICMP
filtering by associating ICMP errors to existing connections. As an
example, when filtering using Netfilter, ICMP errors triggered by known
IP connections are recognized as such (i.e. RELATED state) and thus can
be filtered in a different way unsollicited ones (i.e. INVALID state)
This kind of feature allows one not to block valid ICMP stuff and keep
away from direct ICMP solicitations you can filter the way you want.
That is great till you want to run a server behind that firewall.
The bigger picture, to me, is you gain little in security by blocking ICMP.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [SPAM] Your daily internet traffic report Willem Koenings (Oct 17)
Re: ICMP (was: daily internet traffic report) Barrie Dempster (Oct 18)
Re: ICMP (was: daily internet traffic report) Ron DuFresne (Oct 18)
Re: ICMP (was: daily internet traffic report) Frank de Wit (Oct 18)
- Re: [SPAM] Your daily internet traffic report, (continued)