full-disclosure - Revised paper on "ICMP attacks against TCP"

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <4323295C.9080602@mr0vka.eu.org>
Date: Sat Sep 10 22:46:59 2005
From: lbromirski at mr0vka.eu.org (Łukasz Bromirski)
Subject: Revised paper on "ICMP attacks against TCP"

Florian Weimer wrote:

>>IIRC, those Cisco products that are not vulnerable to the PMTU just don't 
>>implement PMTUD, right?
> You can explicitly enable PMTUD if you want ("ip tcp
> path-mtu-discovery").  It's recommended to reduce CPU overhead for
> processing BGP message (no kidding, apparently it id make a difference
> in the past).

It's still making a difference and not only on Cisco products. When
You have MTU sized down to 576 it's quite harder to push full BGP
table fast. When MTU is 1500, or something around that, you're just
synchronizing faster, because You may pack more information in one
packet.

There's a bunch of presentations freely available that show performance
of BGP sessions with various network-level tweaks.

-- 
this space was intentionally left blank    |            ?ukasz Bromirski
you can insert your favourite quote here   |        lukasz:bromirski,net