nanog mailing list archives
Re: TCP vulnerability
From: Joe Abley <jabley () isc org>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 14:10:06 -0400
On 20 Apr 2004, at 13:59, Aviva Garrett wrote:
In message <1386.64.235.224.55.1082482608.squirrel () mail mzima net>you write:Since no one's mentioned it yet, apparently there was a change in plans.It was just released a day early.This is because of the story at http://www.washingtonpost.com/, in the Technology section.
I suggest an extensive late-night BOF in San Francisco in the bar to discuss the mechanics of adding MD5 keys to all your sessions in 48 hours. Evidence of RSI and eyesight failure will be mandatory, along with battle stories about rt2 mail-loops and rancid-scraping awk scripts gone mad.
Joe
Current thread:
- TCP vulnerability Grant A. Kirkwood (Apr 20)
- Re: TCP vulnerability Aviva Garrett (Apr 20)
- Re: TCP vulnerability Joe Abley (Apr 20)
- Re: TCP vulnerability Randy Bush (Apr 20)
- Re: TCP vulnerability Joe Abley (Apr 20)
- Re: TCP vulnerability Stephen Stuart (Apr 20)
- Re: TCP vulnerability Tom (UnitedLayer) (Apr 20)
- Re: TCP vulnerability Joe Abley (Apr 20)
- Re: TCP vulnerability Aviva Garrett (Apr 20)
- Massive stupidity (Was: Re: TCP vulnerability) Richard A Steenbergen (Apr 20)
- Re: Massive stupidity (Was: Re: TCP vulnerability) Sean Donelan (Apr 20)
- Re: Massive stupidity (Was: Re: TCP vulnerability) Mike Tancsa (Apr 20)
- Re: Massive stupidity (Was: Re: TCP vulnerability) Patrick W . Gilmore (Apr 20)
- TCP/BGP vulnerability - easier than you think David Luyer (Apr 20)
- Re: TCP/BGP vulnerability - easier than you think Patrick W . Gilmore (Apr 20)