netdev - Re: [PATCHv2] net/ipv6: add sysctl option accept_ra_hop

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

Date:	Tue, 28 Jul 2015 12:58:08 +0900
From:	YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <hideaki.yoshifuji@...aclelinux.com>
To:	Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
CC:	hideaki.yoshifuji@...aclelinux.com,
	network dev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] net/ipv6: add sysctl option accept_ra_hop_limit

Hi,

Hangbin Liu wrote:
> 2015-07-28 7:50 GMT+08:00 YOSHIFUJI Hideaki/吉藤英明
> <hideaki.yoshifuji@...aclelinux.com>:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Hangbin Liu wrote:
>>> Commit 6fd99094de2b ("ipv6: Don't reduce hop limit for an interface")
>>> disabled accept hop limit from RA if it is higher than the current hop
>>> limit for security stuff. But this behavior kind of break the RFC definition.
>>>
>>> RFC 4861, 6.3.4.  Processing Received Router Advertisements
>>>    If the received Cur Hop Limit value is non-zero, the host SHOULD set
>>>    its CurHopLimit variable to the received value.
>>>
>>> So add sysctl option accept_ra_hop_limit to let user choose whether accept
>>> hop limit info in RA.
>>>
>>
>> How about introducing "minimum hop limit", instead?
> 
> Hi Yoshifuji,
> 
> This is a good idea. Maybe this can be another sysctl option?
> 
> The minimum hop limit can be an enhancement of the security issue, then we will
> not only increase the hop limit, but also could decrease it in the
> range of values we
> accept.
> 
> On the other hand, with this patch, we can enable, disable or partly
> enable accept
> hop limit. If we only use "minimum hop limit", people could not use a static hop
> limit value.
> 
> May be we use a “hop limit range" instead? How do you think?

I think name of sysctl is the same as you suggested and change the
semantics.  default value is 0 to accept all hotlimit value
as before and people can set it to 32 (for example) to reject
too-small hoplimit (0-31).

--yoshfuji

> 
> Thanks
> Hangbin
> 
>>
>> |commit 6fd99094de2b83d1d4c8457f2c83483b2828e75a
>> |Author: D.S. Ljungmark <ljungmark@...io.se>
>> |Date:   Wed Mar 25 09:28:15 2015 +0100
>> |
>> |    ipv6: Don't reduce hop limit for an interface
>> :
>> |    RFC 3756, Section 4.2.7, "Parameter Spoofing"
>> |
>> :
>> |   >   As an example, one possible approach to mitigate this threat is to
>> |    >   ignore very small hop limits.  The nodes could implement a
>> |    >   configurable minimum hop limit, and ignore attempts to set it below
>> |    >   said limit.

-- 
Hideaki Yoshifuji <hideaki.yoshifuji@...aclelinux.com>
Technical Division, MIRACLE LINUX CORPORATION
--
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