netdev - Re: [resend] Passive OS fingerprint xtables match.

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: <20090604120719.GA14981@ioremap.net>
Date:	Thu, 4 Jun 2009 16:07:19 +0400
From:	Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>
To:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Netfilter Development Mailinglist 
	<netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de>
Subject: Re: [resend] Passive OS fingerprint xtables match.

On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 01:53:05PM +0200, Patrick McHardy (kaber@...sh.net) wrote:
> >That's hard - there is no hook number in the match function, so we do
> >not really know if it is forward, input or prerouting.
> 
> This is really needed, spamming the ring buffer is not a good option.
> 
> I'd say just add the hook number to xt_match_param. Its a bit
> inconsistent anyways that we're handing it to checkentry for
> validation, but not to the match function.

Doesn't checkentry receive a mask of all possible hooks? There is still
no per-packet hook number. Although we can always use INPUT hook since
its the most widely used one. And drop a comment about this abuse.

-- 
	Evgeniy Polyakov
--
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