netdev - Re: port bound SAs

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: <497F4460.4080901@trash.net>
Date:	Tue, 27 Jan 2009 18:29:04 +0100
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	Paul Moore <paul.moore@...trify.com>
CC:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: port bound SAs

Paul Moore wrote:
>>> I believe thats intentional, RFC2367 specifies to ignore port
> numbers except for larval states.
> 
> the ietf ipsec list thinks thats not the case. The consensus there is
> that the port owns the SA (and thats what Windows, and solaris actually
> do)

What does "think thats not the case" mean? Its clearly stated in
2.3.3. Address Extension:

...
    The
    zeroing of ports (e.g. sin_port and sin6_port) MUST be done for all
    messages except for originating SADB_ACQUIRE messages, which SHOULD
    fill them in with ports from the relevant TCP or UDP session which
    generates the ACQUIRE message.


--
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