linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] TCP: add option for silent port knocking with integrity protection

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, 11 Dec 2013 12:26:37 -0800
From:	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To:	Christian Grothoff <grothoff@...tum.de>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, knock@...net.org, jacob@...elbaum.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] TCP: add option for silent port knocking with integrity
 protection

On Wed, 11 Dec 2013 21:19:00 +0100
Christian Grothoff <grothoff@...tum.de> wrote:

> On 12/11/2013 09:01 PM, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Christian Grothoff <grothoff@...tum.de>
> > Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 19:35:36 +0100
> > 
> >> Only NAT implementations that change the SQN are not supported
> >> (those should be rare, but we have no hard data on this).
> > 
> > Even Linux's netfilter can and does do this, it is absolutely necessary
> > for tracking SIP and FTP protocols, and it's also used in our virtual
> > server load balancing modules.
> > 
> 
> We're aware that Linux _can_ do this.  I was not aware it was doing this
> for
> SIP and FTP specifically; regardless, what implementations can do is less
> important than what they are configured to do most of the time, and that's
> what we'd need hard data on.  Anyway, I'd be very interested to learn how
> you use this for SIP/FTP to evaluate the impact.  Do you have documentation
> on this?
> 
> As for server load balancing, I suspect that those are not the kinds of
> services that one would typically use port knocking for.  Still, again a
> good hint as to where trouble might lurk (and we will definitively include
> those points in the next revision of the documentation).

The point is that doing it outside of TCP core is safer, less error prone
and more flexible.
--
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/