netdev - Re: (usagi-core 31727) Re: [PATCH][IPSEC][6/7] inter address family ipsec tunnel

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: <20061203.223336.71087901.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Sun, 03 Dec 2006 22:33:36 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	kazunori@...azawa.org
Cc:	usagi-core@...ux-ipv6.org, miika@....fi, Diego.Beltrami@...t.fi,
	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: (usagi-core 31727) Re: [PATCH][IPSEC][6/7] inter address
 family ipsec tunnel

From: Kazunori MIYAZAWA <kazunori@...azawa.org>
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 13:26:29 +0900

> If uninitialized ut->family is AF_INET or AF_INET6 by chance
> and the family of outer addresses (ut->saddr) is differnt
> ut->family, it results some garbage in the kernel as you know.
> 
> I think it does not results any oops or a segmentation fault
> because xfrm_address always has enough length (16 bytes) to wrong
> access.
> 
>  From the point of view of security, the policy has garbege
> templates, but the selector is valid and it mangates applying
> IPsec. So it result blocking the traffic.
> Accordingly, I think it falls down to secure side.

Yes, I am beginning to think it is safe too.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html