Hi Pablo, On Mon, 27 May 2013 14:36:56 +0200 Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 02:33:46PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > > On Fri, 24 May 2013 06:51:36 -0700 > > Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 2013-05-24 at 15:16 +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > > [...cut...] > > > > I'm amazed, this patch will actually make it a viable choice to load > > > > the conntrack modules on a DDoS based filtering box, and use the > > > > conntracks to protect against ACK and SYN+ACK attacks. > > > > > > > > Simply by not accepting the ACK or SYN+ACK to create a conntrack > > > > entry. Via the command: > > > > sysctl -w net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_tcp_loose=0 > > > > > > > > A quick test show; now I can run a LISTEN process on the port, and > > > > handle an SYN+ACK attack of approx 2580Kpps (and the same for ACK > > > > attacks), while running a LISTEN process on the port. > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > Wow, this is very interesting ! > > > > > > Did you test the thing when expectations are possible ? (say ftp > > > module loaded) > > > > Nope. I'm not sure how to create a test case, that causes an > > expectation to be created. > > This is still in my queue, I didn't forget about this. I need to find > some spare time to give this a test with expectations enabled and also > with conntrackd/state-sync. What about this patch, what is the status? Is it still on you queue, or did it get applied without me noticing? Link for people wanting to read-up on thread: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/268758/ -- Best regards, Jesper Dangaard Brouer MSc.CS, Sr. Network Kernel Developer at Red Hat Author of http://www.iptv-analyzer.org LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
