netdev - Re: [PATCH] Add IPv6 support to TCP SYN cookies

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: <20080205200211.GA26150@one.firstfloor.org>
Date:	Tue, 5 Feb 2008 21:02:11 +0100
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Glenn Griffin <ggriffin.kernel@...il.com>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add IPv6 support to TCP SYN cookies

On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 10:29:28AM -0800, Glenn Griffin wrote:
> > Syncookies are discouraged these days. They disable too many
> > valuable TCP features (window scaling, SACK) and even without them
> > the kernel is usually strong enough to defend against syn floods
> > and systems have much more memory than they used to be.
> >
> > So I don't think it makes much sense to add more code to it, sorry.
> 
> As you say the kernel is usually strong enough to defend against syn flood
> attacks, but what about the situations where it isn't?  As valuable as the TCP
> features are I would give them up if it means I'm able to connect to my sshd
> port when I otherwise would be unable to.  While increased synq sizes, better
> dropping algorithms, and minisocks are a great way to mitigate the attacks and
> in most cases are enough, there are situations where syncookies are nice.

Have you seen such a case in practice with a modern kernel? 

They also cause problems unfortunately; e.g. there is no real flow control for connections
anymore in the non DOS case.

> Regardless, I would say as long as ipv4 has syncookie support it will
> accurately be viewed as a deficiency of ipv6 if it lacks support.  So perhaps
> the discussion should be we whether all the other defenses are enough to
> warrant the removal of syncookie support from ipv4.  That topic may bring in
> more opinions.

That is essentially what I and Alan were discussing.
> 
> > Besides you should really move it to the ipv6 module, right now the code
> > would be always compiled in even for ipv4 only kernels.
> 
> That is correct.  I will gladly move it into it's own section within net/ipv6/.
> Do you have any problem using the same CONFIG and sysctl variables as the ipv4
> implementation?

No.

-Andi
--
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