netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/8] tou: Transports over UDP

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:	Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:12:15 -0700
From:	Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
To:	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/8] tou: Transports over UDP - part I

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 12:50 AM, Richard Weinberger <richard@....at> wrote:
> Am 23.06.2016 um 09:40 schrieb David Miller:
>> From: Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>
>> Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 00:15:04 +0200
>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com> wrote:
>>>> Transports over UDP is intended to encapsulate TCP and other transport
>>>> protocols directly and securely in UDP.
>>>>
>>>> The goal of this work is twofold:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Allow applications to run their own transport layer stack (i.e.from
>>>>    userspace). This eliminates dependencies on the OS (e.g. solves a
>>>>    major dependency issue for Facebook on clients).
>>>
>>> Facebook on clients would be a Facebook app on mobile devices?
>>> Does that mean that the Facebook app is so advanced and complicated
>>> that it needs a special TCP stack?!
>>
>> No, the TCP stack in the android/iOS/Windows kernel is so out of date
>> that in order to get even moderately recent TCP features it is
>> necessary to do this.
>
> I see.
> So the plan is bringing TOU into almost every kernel out there
> and then ship Apps with their own TCP stacks since vendors are unable
> to deliver decent updates.
>
> I didn't realize that the situation is *that* worse. :(
>
The client OS side is only part of the story. Middlebox intrusion at
L4 is also a major issue we need to address. The "failure" of TFO is a
good case study. Both the upgrade issues on clients and the tendency
for some middleboxes to drop SYN packets with data have together
severely hindered what otherwise should have been straightforward and
useful feature to deploy.

Tom

> //richard