full-disclosure - Re: DNS and NAT (was: DNS and CheckPoint)

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

Message-ID: <38756.1215791502@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:51:42 -0400
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To: Thomas Cross <tcross@...ibm.com>
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: DNS and NAT (was: DNS and CheckPoint)

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:01:33 EDT, Thomas Cross said:

>     Thanks for testing this. A number of other readers wrote me privately
> confirming your result with linux ipchains. I'm not sure what ipchains does
> when it encounters a collision, but in general I think this is a good
> strategy. You'd have to have many thousands of simultaneous UDP
> transactions in order for randomly selected source ports to be colliding
> frequently enough for it to present a substantial problem.

Birthday paradox strikes again.

With 64K source ports, you'll have collisions over 1% of the time at only 1024
in use. With 8K in use, you're hitting collisions 12% of the time.

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/