netdev - Re: [RFC 1/3] tcp: randomize tcp timestamp offsets for each connection

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, 19 Aug 2016 00:32:19 +0200
From:   Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
To:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:     Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/3] tcp: randomize tcp timestamp offsets for each
 connection

Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-08-18 at 14:48 +0200, Florian Westphal wrote:
> > commit ceaa1fef65a7c2e ("tcp: adding a per-socket timestamp offset")
> > added the main infrastructure that is needed for per-connection
> > randomization, in particular writing/reading the on-wire tcp header
> > format takes the offset into account so rest of stack can use normal
> > tcp_time_stamp (jiffies).
> > 
> > So only two items are left:
> >  - add a tsoffset for request sockets
> >  - extend the tcp isn generator to also return another 32bit number
> >  in addition to the ISN.
> > 
> > Re-use of ISN generator also means timestamps are still monotonically
> > increasing for same connection quadruple.
> 
> I like the idea, but the implementation looks a bit complex.
> 
> Instead of initializing tsoffset to 0, we could simply use
> 
> jhash(src_addr, dst_addr, boot_time_rnd)
> 
> This way, even syncookies would be handled, and we do not need to
> increase tcp_request_sock size.

True, however I think it would be fairly easy to discover
boot_time_rnd given a few outputs, as jhash is not cryptograhic hash, no?

If thats not a concern I can just use jhash (not taking ports
into account doesn't seem to be a problem).

Alternatively (if tcp_request_sock increase/complexity is a problem)
I could either call the isn generator again, or add an extra function
for it (again using md5), I did not do this because I was afraid
it would be too expensive to do two md5 calculations.

Thanks for reviewing!

For cookies I had planned to just extend the cookie sha1 similar
to isn generator here, alternatives welcome.