[21892] in bugtraq
Re: UDP packet handling weird behaviour of various operating systems
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stefan Laudat)
Thu Jul 26 18:01:38 2001
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 01:43:37 +0300
From: Stefan Laudat <stefan@mail.allianztiriac.ro>
To: Michal Zalewski <lcamtuf@gis.net>
Cc: Stefan Laudat <stefan@mail.allianztiriac.ro>, bugtraq@securityfocus.com
Message-ID: <20010726014337.A31276@allianztiriac.ro>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0107251732400.747-100000@nimue.bos.bindview.com>; from lcamtuf@gis.net on Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 05:38:32PM -0400
> Uh-huh. Tested it on Linux 2.2 and 2.4, can't confirm the problem. It
> would be pretty strange, btw, since it simply generates normal UDP packet,
> no black magic, really, and remote system, unless there's comast service
> running, politely responds with 'ICMP destination port unreachable', which
> is translated into 'Connection refused'.
Hmm. How many seconds did you actually run that?
> Nothing magic about its behavior:
Did I mentioned it's magic? Guess not :-/
> Maybe there's comsat service running? Or you made system too busy handling
> I/O by flooding using 1 Gbit (I doubt it)...
As I said, NO.
> Windows are usually impacted by high-ratio packet floods.
Not this time.
> I believe you are actually testing link layer performance, PCI bus speed
> and network cards, not operating systems ;)
Believe it or not, I got a OpenBSD-2.9 current hanged up out there.
I'll test further systems.
What amazed me was different types of system reaction with different
drivers at different links.
>
> --
> _____________________________________________________
> Michal Zalewski [lcamtuf@bos.bindview.com] [security]
> [http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx] <=-=> bash$ :(){ :|:&};:
> =-=> Did you know that clones never use mirrors? <=-=
>
--
Stefan Laudat
CCNA,CCAI
Senior Network Engineer
Allianz-Tiriac SA
"Let's call it an accidental feature."
-- Larry Wall
