netdev - Re: [RFC, PATCH 2.6.29.2] Ethernet V2.0 Configuration Testing Protocol, revision 20090428

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 5 May 2009 17:21:44 +0930
From:	Mark Smith 
	<lnx-netdev@...22607b6285f9c5d5ea31ea9d8a7ac.nosense.org>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH 2.6.29.2] Ethernet V2.0 Configuration Testing
 Protocol, revision 20090428

Hi Andi,

Thanks for your interest.

On Mon, 04 May 2009 11:29:55 +0200
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:

> Mark Smith <lnx-netdev@...22607b6285f9c5d5ea31ea9d8a7ac.nosense.org> writes:
> > +
> > +4. Security
> > +
> > +ECTP was designed in the early 1980s, when protocol security was less of
> > +a concern than it is now. Consequently, there are some features of the
> > +protocol which could be abused for nefarious purposes. By default, this
> > +implementation attempts to avoid participating in them. These features
> > +could be useful for some test cases thought, so they can be enabled if
> > +required.
> 
> I think security would need quite a bit more discussion. Opening new
> DOS this way sounds quite worrying, especially since this is a
> extremly obscure protocol that likely most admins don't know much
> about.
> 
> Is this suspencible to ping to broadcast flood replication for example?
> 

No it isn't. Forward addresses in forward messages (specifying the next
hop on the path) are prohibited by the protocol specification from
being multicast or broadcast addresses.

> Safest would probably be default to off.
> 

In my implementation, this unicast forward address check can't be
switched off.

Some of the other security mitigation mechanisms I've implemented
weren't really necessary, however I felt that it'd be good to ensure
this implementation was as good a "citizen" as possible.

Thanks,
Mark.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html