On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:16:35PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:No, my question is does it ever make sense to use conntrack as part of bridge netfilter. That is, do you ever want to test it in your rules that are run as part of bridge netfilter. conntrack is inherently a security hole when used as part of bridging, because it ignores the Ethernet header so two unrelated connections can be tracked as one. It used to be an even bigger security hole when we ignored VLAN and PPPOE headers but at least that's now off by default. Cheers, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
| Peter Zijlstra | [RFC][PATCH 7/7] lockdep: spin_lock_nest_lock() |
| Gabriel C | Re: 2.6.24-rc2-mm1 |
| Andrew Morton | Re: [PATCH 2.6.21] cramfs: add cramfs Linear XIP |
| Jiri Kosina | Re: 2.6.21-rc5-mm4 |
git: | |
| Gregory Haskins | [RFC PATCH 00/17] virtual-bus |
| Jarek Poplawski | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 0/37] dccp: Feature negotiation - last call for comments |
