Re: restrict implicit binding to interfaces
- From: David Schwartz <davids@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 05:35:14 -0700 (PDT)
On Oct 30, 5:08 am, Maxwell Lol <nos...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sounds like a real security risk to me. That says I can send packets
to a router/firewall with the destination being the inside address,
and it will respond.
Since you can send packets to that router/firewall with the
destination being the outside address much more easily, why would you
think this matters?
DS
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: restrict implicit binding to interfaces
- From: Wolfgang Draxinger
- Re: restrict implicit binding to interfaces
- References:
- restrict implicit binding to interfaces
- From: Wolfgang Draxinger
- Re: restrict implicit binding to interfaces
- From: David Schwartz
- Re: restrict implicit binding to interfaces
- From: Rick Jones
- Re: restrict implicit binding to interfaces
- From: David Schwartz
- Re: restrict implicit binding to interfaces
- From: Maxwell Lol
- restrict implicit binding to interfaces
- Prev by Date: Re: restrict implicit binding to interfaces
- Next by Date: Re: BIND -- can't register nameserver
- Previous by thread: Re: restrict implicit binding to interfaces
- Next by thread: Re: restrict implicit binding to interfaces
- Index(es):