netdev - Re: [PATCH] xfrm: Accept ESP packets regardless of UDP encapsulation mode

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: <20081217.201755.11960524.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:17:55 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au
Cc:	martin@...ongswan.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfrm: Accept ESP packets regardless of UDP
 encapsulation mode

From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:14:19 +1100

> A quick google failed to reveal any specific requirements apart
> from the need to move in and out of NAT environments.
> 
> That isn't actually an issue because when your addresses change
> you have to renegotiate with the other side to ensure that this
> isn't some kind of an attack.  Afterwards you have to recreate
> the SAs at which point you can easily set the encapsulation to
> whatever it should be.
> 
> The only time when you need this patch is if the other side
> unilaterally switched from NAT-T to no NAT-T, or vice versa,
> which does not sound like a sane thing to do.

My interpretation of the situation is that when you change (address or
NAT-T) you still have to perform the renegotiation over the old SA.

Or something like that.
--
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