From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Antony Stone Subject: Re: mangle + TCP Flags Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 19:38:29 +0000 Sender: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org Message-ID: <200312101938.29329.Antony@Soft-Solutions.co.uk> References: <20031210151934.65780e26.jm.nfilter@laposte.net> <002701c3bf53$62b81d90$0e25fe0a@southpark.ae.poznan.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <002701c3bf53$62b81d90$0e25fe0a@southpark.ae.poznan.pl> Errors-To: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: netfilter@lists.netfilter.org On Wednesday 10 December 2003 7:25 pm, Maciej Soltysiak wrote: > [Oops, sorry there for incomplete mail :)] > Hi, > > > I think to something like that: > > iptables -t mangle -A INPUT -j TCPFLAG --set-flags FIN,URG > > There is no such module. It would be possible to do that. > If a module like this existed it would be a great way to violate the > protocol and cause antisocial behaviour of your tcp stack. There are plenty of ways to do that already - I don't think one more would hurt.... :) Enough people think that un-decrementing the TTL field, or DROPping packets without sending back RST or ICMP, is a bad enough violation of the protocol (both of these are easily possible with netfilter as it is). Antony. -- Perfection in design is achieved not when there is nothing left to add, but rather when there is nothing left to take away. - Antoine de Saint-Exupery Please reply to the list; please don't CC me.