netdev - Re: strange tcp behavior

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]

Message-ID: <46B35D1E.9050501@simon.arlott.org.uk>
Date:	Fri, 03 Aug 2007 17:51:42 +0100
From:	Simon Arlott <simon@...e.lp0.eu>
To:	Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>
CC:	john@...een.lv, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: strange tcp behavior

On 03/08/07 13:09, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 01:03:46PM +0100, Simon Arlott (simon@...e.lp0.eu) wrote:
>> On Fri, August 3, 2007 12:56, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
>> > On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 12:21:46PM +0100, Simon Arlott (simon@...e.lp0.eu) wrote:
>> >> Since the connection is considered closed, couldn't another socket re-use it?
>> >>
>> >> Socket A: Recv data (unread)
>> >> Socket A: Recv RST
>> >> Socket B: Reuses connection (same IPs/ports)
>> >> Socket A: Close
>> >>
>> >> Wouldn't that disrupt socket B's use of the connection?
>> >
>> > Then it will drop our data, since there were no appropriate handhsake.
>> 
>> Couldn't the sequence numbers be close enough to make the RST valid?
> 
> It does not matter - if connection is not in synchronized state all
> unrelated data is dropped, so remote side is only allowed to receive syn
> flag only, anything else must be dropped. If remote side does not do
> that, it violates RFC.

Except the remote side has a connection, because another one can be made 
before the existing connection is closed:

17:37:37.377571 IP 192.168.7.4.50550 > 192.168.7.8.2500: S 134077329:134077329(0) win 1500 (raw)
17:37:37.382352 IP 192.168.7.8.2500 > 192.168.7.4.50550: S 3460060233:3460060233(0) ack 134077330 win 14360 <mss 7180> (accept)
17:37:37.377966 IP 192.168.7.4.50550 > 192.168.7.8.2500: . ack 1 win 1500 (raw)
17:37:37.378128 IP 192.168.7.4.50550 > 192.168.7.8.2500: P 1:17(16) ack 1 win 1500 (raw)
17:37:37.378162 IP 192.168.7.8.2500 > 192.168.7.4.50550: . ack 17 win 14360
17:37:37.378131 IP 192.168.7.4.50550 > 192.168.7.8.2500: R 134077346:134077346(0) win 1500 (raw)

17:37:37.412709 IP 192.168.7.4.50550 > 192.168.7.8.2500: SWE 3257207813:3257207813(0) win 14280 <mss 7140,sackOK,timestamp 3601441543 0,nop,wscale 5> (connect)
17:37:37.412785 IP 192.168.7.8.2500 > 192.168.7.4.50550: SE 3495384256:3495384256(0) ack 3257207814 win 14336 <mss 7180,sackOK,timestamp 4294812905 3601441543,nop,wscale 6> (accept)
17:37:37.412960 IP 192.168.7.4.50550 > 192.168.7.8.2500: . ack 1 win 447 <nop,nop,timestamp 3601441543 4294812905>

17:37:38.383085 IP 192.168.7.8.2500 > 192.168.7.4.50550: R 4259643274:4259643274(0) ack 1171836829 win 14360 (close (previous connection))

17:37:47.417649 IP 192.168.7.8.2500 > 192.168.7.4.50550: F 1:1(0) ack 1 win 224 <nop,nop,timestamp 4294822910 3601441543> (close)
17:37:47.417993 IP 192.168.7.4.50550 > 192.168.7.8.2500: F 1:1(0) ack 2 win 447 <nop,nop,timestamp 3601444045 4294822910> (read returned)
17:37:47.418466 IP 192.168.7.8.2500 > 192.168.7.4.50550: . ack 2 win 224 <nop,nop,timestamp 4294822911 3601444045>


The second connection also modified the RST|ACK that was sent compared to no second connection:

17:38:03.532703 IP 192.168.7.4.50550 > 192.168.7.8.2500: S 82517575:82517575(0) win 1500 (raw)
17:38:03.532832 IP 192.168.7.8.2500 > 192.168.7.4.50550: S 3495449795:3495449795(0) ack 82517576 win 14360 <mss 7180> (accept)
17:38:03.533388 IP 192.168.7.4.50550 > 192.168.7.8.2500: . ack 1 win 1500 (raw)
17:38:03.533457 IP 192.168.7.4.50550 > 192.168.7.8.2500: P 1:17(16) ack 1 win 1500 (raw)
17:38:03.533597 IP 192.168.7.8.2500 > 192.168.7.4.50550: . ack 17 win 14360
17:38:03.533589 IP 192.168.7.4.50550 > 192.168.7.8.2500: R 82517592:82517592(0) win 1500 (raw)

17:38:04.536277 IP 192.168.7.8.2500 > 192.168.7.4.50550: R 1:1(0) ack 17 win 14360 (close)


17:38:04.536277 IP 192.168.7.8.2500 > 192.168.7.4.50550: R 1:1(0) ack 17 win 14360
vs
17:37:38.383085 IP 192.168.7.8.2500 > 192.168.7.4.50550: R 4259643274:4259643274(0) ack 1171836829 win 14360
What happened there ?


On the server, run tcptest-server.c, which waits for 1s on the first connection then 10s on the second connection.

On the client, run:
iptables -I INPUT -i eth0 -p tcp --dport 50550 -j DROP; ./client; iptables -D INPUT -i eth0 -p tcp --dport 50550 -j DROP; ./tcptest-client

(client.c from john's original email)

-- 
Simon Arlott


View attachment "tcptest-server.c" of type "text/x-csrc" (1712 bytes)

View attachment "tcptest-client.c" of type "text/x-csrc" (1409 bytes)