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  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:	Sat, 4 Aug 2007 20:03:24 +0400
From:	Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>
To:	Simon Arlott <simon@...e.lp0.eu>
Cc:	john@...een.lv, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: strange tcp behavior

On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 07:29:58PM +0100, Simon Arlott (simon@...e.lp0.eu) wrote:
> On 03/08/07 18:39, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 05:51:42PM +0100, Simon Arlott (simon@...e.lp0.eu) wrote:
> > 
> >> 17:38:03.533589 IP 192.168.7.4.50550 > 192.168.7.8.2500: R 82517592:82517592(0) win 1500 (raw)
> >> 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 ?
> 
> Erm... you seem to have removed parts of my message in a way that doesn't 
> make sense...

Sorry, I left line I tought were enough to understand your point.

> On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 05:51:42PM +0100, Simon Arlott wrote:
> > 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 ?
> 
> The first one is the RST sent when the connection is close()d without 
> reading, and the second one is the same RST but after other connection 
> has been made on the same ports using a different socket.

I understood it, and your question is about possibility for those
numbers to be roughly the same. Answer is 'no', it is not possible
(possible, but with extremely low probability).
If it is - this is a bug in ISN generation algo and must be fixed.

> > It is the same situation, which would happen if you will spam remote
> > side with RST packets with arbitrary sequence number in hope that it
> > will reset some connection.
> 
> Isn't it still possible that the connection that got reset is left open 
> (possibly for days) until another connection using the same ports is 
> using roughly the same sequence numbers?

Of course it is possible, but it very unlikely. Practically it is
impossible in modern OSes - ISN generation algos are designed to prevent
this from happening.

> -- 
> Simon Arlott

-- 
	Evgeniy Polyakov
-
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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists