[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <200507202225.j6KMPni9026020@caligula.anu.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 08:25:49 +1000 (Australia/ACT)
From: Darren Reed <avalon@...igula.anu.edu.au>
To: fernando@....utn.edu.ar (Fernando Gont)
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk, Security Alert <secure@...hs.cup.hp.com>,
bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
Subject: Re: (ICMP attacks against TCP) (was Re:
HPSBUX01137 SSRT5954 rev.4
In some mail from Fernando Gont, sie said:
> The IPv4 minimum MTU is 68, and not 576. If you blindly send packets larger
> than 68 with the DF bit set, in the case there's an intermmediate with an
> MTU lower that 576, the connection will stall.
And I think you can safely say that if you see any packets trying to
indicate that the MTU of a link is "68" then you should ignore it.
This came up some years ago in discussion about ... hmm... I think it
was what made a good (or sensible) "fragmentation required" ICMP message.
Ignoring quenches as a problem, if you try to send 10K of data to a
box that has an MTU of 68, 1200+ packets are required vs less than 10
for an ethernet MTU. The problem is 1200 packets require a lot more
system time to send than 6 or 7. A different kind of DoS attack.
I think it is reasonable to say anyone trying to advertise an MTU less
than 576 has nefarious purposes in mind.
oh, IPv6 guarantees a min. MTU of 1280.
Lets just stop using IPv4 already.
Darren
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists