On Mon, 19 May 2003, Jamal Hadi wrote:
> I dont think the hashes are similar - its the effect into the
> slow path. I was told by someone who tested this on a priicey CISCO
> that they simply die unless capable of a feature called CEF.
Yes, but pretty much nobody is using Cisco without CEF, except in the last
mile, low-end devices.
> On Mon, 19 May 2003, David S. Miller wrote:
>
> > From: Jamal Hadi <hadi@shell.cyberus.ca>
> > Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 21:23:08 -0400 (EDT)
> >
> > Also used to attack CISCOs by them kiddies btw. We stand much better
> > than any CISCO doing caching.
> >
> > I have to assume that the source address selection operates
> > differently for attacking cisco equiptment, our hashes being
> > identical would really be unbelievable :-)
> >
> >
> >
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
-- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 23 2003 - 22:00:02 EST