Subject: Re: Enable syn cookies by default

From: William Allen Simpson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:36:09 -0400

Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> How and when do they interfere?
> If syn cookies are enabled and the queue isn't full, they're not used
> so they don't interfere.
> If the queue is full, they do interfere, but the alternative would be
> no connection at all.

You just answered your own question, both "how" and "when"....

> So I really don't see the disadvantage of enabling cookies by default.
> 
On systems with long delay paths, it represents turning back the clock
more than a decade or so.  A better solution is usually a firewall/IDS.
The best solution: I'm working on it.

As I'm sure you're aware, Timestamps and Sack options are fairly crucial.

>> As Ubuntu is debian based, perhaps they can back-port the Ubuntu changes?
> 
> Actually changing the value isn't the problem, but the Debian
> maintainer isn't sure it's a good idea (but he doesn't know why).
> 
Well, that depends.  For a client, it's a good idea, as the defense is
mostly local and rare.  For a server run by a small underfunded ISP, it's
still a good idea as a last ditch defense.  But for a full-fledged ISP,
especially running in a satellite environment or with a lot of dial-up
customers, it's terrible!

That's a reason the Ubuntu configuration approach works for me.

A caveat: I've not run debian directly in many, many years (IIRC, since
Red Hat Colgate), and more recently via Unbuntu (since Badger).  I don't
know whether debian has evolved different installation procedures for
different environments.

My comments are based on fairly extensive experience with deployment of
Yellow Dog Linux servers at an ISP (as a co-founder), and Ubuntu clients
for the past 2 (US) election cycles.