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 20:49:10 +0400
From:	Evgeniy Polyakov <>
To:	David Miller <>
Subject: Re: strange tcp behavior

On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 01:04:51PM -0700, David Miller ( wrote:
> From: Evgeniy Polyakov <>
> Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 12:22:42 +0400
> > On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 07:21:34PM -0700, David Miller ( wrote:
> > > What in the world are we doing allowing stream sockets to autobind?
> > > That is totally bogus.  Even if we autobind, that won't make a connect
> > > happen.
> > 
> > For accepted socket it is perfectly valid assumption - we could autobind 
> > it during the first send. Or may bind it during accept. Its a matter of
> > taste I think. Autobinding during first sending can end up being a 
> > protection against DoS in some obscure rare case...
> accept()ed socket is by definition fully bound and already in
> established state.

That what I meant - it binds during accept (well it can not be called
real binding), but could be autobound during first send to needed port.
Maybe that was one of intentions, don't know.

	Evgeniy Polyakov
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists