Great Circle Associates Firewalls
(November 1993)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: IDENT secure?
From: Darren Reed <avalon @ coombs . anu . edu . au>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1993 14:32:57 +1000 (EDT)
To: smb @ research . att . com
Cc: alastair @ cadence . com, firewalls @ GreatCircle . COM
In-reply-to: <9311152144 . AA16255 @ mycroft . GreatCircle . COM> from "smb @ research . att . com" at Nov 15, 93 04:42:01 pm

> There's no reason you have to run a real IDENT daemon.  First, of
> course, you can run nothing at all.  Sendmail should (and almost certainly
> does) detect the ``connection refused'' message immediately.  Second,
> you could run something that simply spits out an error message in the
> proper form (no, I don't happen to know what that would be; we don't
> run it).

My guess is, the 30 second wait is being caused by firewalls dropping the
packets to the IDENT port (113), and end systems not getting any response
back, leading to a timeout.

Darren


References:
Indexed By Date Previous: Re: Usenix LISA VII Firewalls BOF
From: Tim Guarnieri <timg @ vix . com>
Next: Re: IDENT secure?
From: gt6468c @ prism . gatech . edu (Christopher Klaus)
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: IDENT secure?
From: smb @ research . att . com
Next: Re: IDENT secure?
From: Brent Chapman <brent @ mycroft . GreatCircle . COM>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com