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]
Date:	Mon, 28 Jul 2008 09:14:34 -0400
From:	Vlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@...com>
To:	Gerrit Renker <gerrit@....abdn.ac.uk>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, vladislav.yasevich@...com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] sctp/tcp: Question -- ICMPv4 length check (not)	redundant?

Ok, I seem to be confused here.


Gerrit Renker wrote:
> Thank you for the input. To sum up,
>  * removing the per-protocol "ICMP payload too short" test and error counter
>    increment as initially suggested does not seem right;
>  * there are protocols such as IPComp which have a header length less than
>    8 bytes(and for these the test in the ICMP handler may be too much);

How so.  Either 8 bytes will be there or not.  If the 8 bytes aren't there,
we won't event make to the error handlers as it stands right now.  As is, if
the ICMP packet doesn't contain the 8 bytes, it's too short according to ICMP spec.

>  * there are protocols such as DCCP which need more than 8 bytes (at least 12)
>    to interpret the ICMP message in a meaningful way;

If you need more then 8 bytes, that protocol needs to have a check for the extra
space.  8 byte are mandatory.

>  * the requirement of having at least 8 bytes of transport-layer data available
>    is stringent (afaik) only for ICMPv4, but not ICMPv6;

Splitting hairs here, but ICMPv6 is much more stringent.  It forces you send as
close to 1280 byte error messages as possible.

>  * only TCP/SCTP seem to have a proper per-protocol "payload too short" test;

Hm..  In the standard case, these do seem to be redundant since 8 bytes are required
by ICMP spec.

>  * for DCCP, the work is actually doubled since 
>    - first the ICMP handler tests for minimally 8 bytes, 
>    - then the DCCP error handler tests for required minimum of 12 bytes.

DCCP and any other protocol that requires more error data should check for it in
its own handler.  8 bytes should be guaranteed to such handler.

What am I missing?

Thanks
-vlad

> 
> Thus the patch at the begginning of this thread should be disregarded.
> It might be worth to consider per-protocol handlers.
> 
> Gerrit
> 

--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ