linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] tcp: Wrong timeout for SYN segments

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:	Wed, 29 Aug 2012 01:51:45 -0700
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	"H.K. Jerry Chu" <hkjerry.chu@...il.com>
Cc:	Alexander Bergmann <alex@...lab.net>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] tcp: Wrong timeout for SYN segments

On Tue, 2012-08-28 at 21:34 -0700, H.K. Jerry Chu wrote:

> IMHO 31secs seem a little short. Why not change it to 6 as well because 63
> secs still beats 93secs with 3sec initRTO and 5 retries.
> 
> Jerry
> 

My rationale was that such increase were going to amplify SYN attacks
impact by 20% (if we count number of useless SYNACK sent)

If the active side sends SYN packets for 180 seconds, do we really want
to also send SYNACKS for additional 100 seconds ?

Sure, RFC numbers are what they are, but in practice, I doubt someone
will really miss the extra SYNACK sent after ~32 seconds, since it would
matter only for the last SYN attempted.



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/