Great Circle Associates Firewalls
(January 1995)
 

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

Subject: Re: Dynamically Re-arranged Access Lists?
From: Joe Matuscak <matuscak @ rohrer . com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 11:28:22 -0500 (EST)
To: Stephen Harold Goldstein <steveg @ cseic . saic . com>
Cc: firewalls @ greatcircle . com
In-reply-to: <9501262128 . AA08758 @ cseic . saic . com>

On Thu, 26 Jan 1995, Stephen Harold Goldstein wrote:

> I just got back from ComNet '95 in D.C., and heard some rather
> disturbing "info" from a firewall vendor who shall remain nameless.
> He claimed that some manufacturer's routers (wouldn't specify) will
> re-arrange the order in which ACL entries are processed for efficiency
> reasons, possibly leading to unintended results such as packets getting
> through that should have been blocked.

That is certainly the case with Telebit NetBlazers up through the 
currently shipping version (2.3).  I think there are also other charming 
features like a (poorly documented) limit on the number of ports 
specified in a ACL where if you specify more than that number, it 
(silently) drops the additional ports.



Joe Matuscak
Rohrer Corporation
717 Seville Road
Wadsworth, Ohio 44281
(216)335-1541
Matuscak @
 Rohrer .
 com



References:
Indexed By Date Previous: IP Filtering PPP package???
From: Jeff Collyer <jeff @ bundy . cnet-pnw . com>
Next: Re: Firewall-1 and TCP Sequence Number Spoofing
From: Kenneth Lee <klee @ cmprime . att . com>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: Dynamically Re-arranged Access Lists?
From: Paul Traina <pst @ cisco . com>
Next: Re: Dynamically Re-arranged Access Lists?
From: Brent @ GreatCircle . COM (Brent Chapman)

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com