Re: [HELP] why the string match does not work in nat tables?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tuesday 2011-02-01 13:41, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
>>> On 01/02/11 13:01, GÃspÃr Lajos wrote:
>>>> The string match is much like a toy and not a real help in the iptables.
>>>> (Sorry, I do not really "believe" in this match. But also I understand
>>>> the need for such match. Sometimes it can be very usefull.)  As already
>>>> mentioned before, the main problem is the fragmentation.
>>>
>>> fragmentation is not a problem for algorithms like knuth-pratt-morris,
>>> which is implemented in textsearch. boyer-moore is faster but if the
>>> text is splitted among fragments, it won't find a matching.
>>>
>>> segmentation is a problem for textsearch, it wouldn't be hard to extend
>>> the string matching to make it flow-based.
>> 
>> How so? You would have to collect the packets like l7-filter.
>
>You can store the partial matching in the ts_state structure, which
>would be stored in every ct flow object, with a conntrack extension.
>You'll have to make the string match stateful, of course.

Though that would not solve the problem as to requiring to
forward the frames before the match.

>BTW, I'm working on something new to provide a replacement l7-filter.

With regex engine? :-)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Netfilter Development]     [Linux Kernel Networking Development]     [Netem]     [Berkeley Packet Filter]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Advanced Routing & Traffice Control]     [Bugtraq]

  Powered by Linux