I don't need no stinking firewall!
mysidia at gmail.com
Sun Jan 10 08:48:54 UTC 2010
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Joe Greco <jgreco at ns.sol.net> wrote:
> Putting a stateful firewall in front of that would be dumb; the server
> is completely capable of coping with the superfluous SYN's in a much
> more competent manner than the firewall.
The trouble with blanket statements about "all stateful firewalls" and
"all servers" is there are lots of different firewall and server
platforms. Stateful firewalls can implement SYN cookies, and at least
a couple do. Firewalls do not need to build a state entry for
partial TCP sessions, there are a few different things that can be
done, such as the firewall answering on behalf of the server (using
SYN cookies) and negotiating connection with the server after the
As a result, spoofed TCP packets don't consume state. Multiple IPs
they can _receive_ traffic to required, next?
Spoofed UDP is a much bigger problem, because there is no connection
establishment. And it's probably not sane to put certain
public-facing UDP services such as large public DNS service IPs
(e.g. 184.108.40.206) behind most forms of stateful filter.
But that's not the average case, by any means, most servers are not
Servers consume state just like firewalls do....
E.g. A public FTP server that opens a process for each connection,
goes down in a connection flood, when kernel process slots are used
up, long before the firewall.
Servers running a robust OS completely and correctly configured to
perfectly protect themsleves (resource limits, etc), no Windows
OSes, with unwanted open ports, is a wholly unwarranted assumption
for real-world server environments.
In the best cases it does hold up (to a great extent).
In other cases, it's an operational fantasy; it would be nice if that
could be relied upon....
More information about the NANOG