| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
From: khermansen at ht-technology.com (Kristian Hermansen) Subject: Re: NAT router inbound network traffic subversion I think the answers that I received in response to my query are somewhat obvious -- yes -- but neither answered my question! Morning Wood's analysis was brilliant as ever, like always ;-P "atacker now can do a he wishes to the rest of your network ( GAME OVER )" Ummm...okay. The problem with you was this statement: "NAT client browses web..." HOW IS THIS NOT USER INTERACTION?!?!? I asked if there is a computer on the internal network that doesn't do anything -- that means SENDING NO PACKETS to the router -- if an attacker can get EVEN ONE PACKET inside: then they will prove everyone wrong, right? If one packet can get through, it can be considered a rogue packet that should not have entered the internal network destined for a particular host -- or better yet -- an internal broadcast address going to all hosts. Some say getting these rogue packets into the network is "impossible". That is the reason for my question. I like to think that most problems are "intractable", but not "impossible". Can anyone prove me wrong? Can someone push a rogue packet behind a router with no client interaction??? This is my chautauqua... -- Kristian Hermansen <khermansen@...technology.com> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20050128/27080c35/attachment.bin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists