Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    comp.protocols.tcp-ip    |    TCP and IP network protocols.    |    14,669 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 13,139 of 14,669    |
|    Noah Davids to Jorgen Grahn    |
|    Re: sequence number rewrite    |
|    05 Nov 09 04:11:56    |
      From: ndav1@cox.net              Jorgen Grahn wrote:       > On Wed, 2009-11-04, Noah Davids wrote:       >> Jorgen Grahn wrote:       >>> On Tue, 2009-11-03, Noah Davids wrote:       >>>> Pascal Hambourg wrote:       >>>>> Hello,       >>>>>       >>>>> Noah Davids a écrit :       >>>>>> Can anyone suggest what type of device would rewrite sequence numbers in       >>>>>> a connection.       >>>>> Stateful firewalls and NAT devices.       >>>> I thought of a NAT device but since the IP addresses and port numbers       >>>> are unchanged it didn't seem likely. Are you suggesting that a NAT       >>>> device might not rewrite addresses and port numbers?       >>>>       >>>> As far as a stateful firewall, I thought of that as well but I couldn't       >>>> think of a reason why it would bother to rewrite the sequence numbers       >>>> but leave everything else unchanged. Is there a reason?       >>> Don't know ... Whatever it is, it is stateful, and spends a lot of       >>> resources on this. Your data must be valuable to this third party       >>> somehow ...       >>>       >>> Does this happen on "popular" ports only, or on any TCP ports?       >       > ...       >       >> The ports that this was first notice on where not your typical ports. I       >> was trying to match up packets from both sides of the network to       >> understand a performance issue. As I test I tried a connection to the       >> echo port and saw the same behavior starting with the initial SYN packet.       >       > So you haven't tried any of the "popular" ports? I guess I mean HTTP.       >       > I can imagine evil men-in-the-middle to mess with HTTP only       > (transparent-proxy-something), or with everything *but* HTTP (punish       > people who use IP for more than "surfing the web").       >       > I suppose this means your TCP connections also get broken if they stay       > silent for more than N seconds. They must have some kind of timeout       > so they don't run out of memory.       >       > /Jorgen       >              We haven't noticed a timeout problem.              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca