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:	Thu, 12 Dec 2013 07:33:41 -0800
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Christian Grothoff <grothoff@...tum.de>
Cc:	Jacob Appelbaum <jacob@...elbaum.net>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, knock@...net.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] TCP: add option for silent port knocking with integrity
 protection

On Thu, 2013-12-12 at 16:07 +0100, Christian Grothoff wrote:

> I'm already having fun with IETF and pTLDs right now, one war at a time
> ;-).  I also figured it might be easier to have a reasonable working
> reference implementation first and then standardize.  After all, with my
> recent draft some people at IETF suggested I should get 1,000,000+ users
> first and then ask again.

Honestly, breaking the detection of old packets (PAWS) is not going to
fly. Its not even mentioned in your doc.

If a client uses the same ISN for two consecutive connexions to a
server, how the server can decide the 2nd SYN is not a duplicate ?

You really need more than 3 pages to fully investigate all the pros/cons
of this idea.


--
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/