netdev - Re: [RFC] Fixing up TCP/UDP checksum for UDP encap. ESP4 packets in transport 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: <20090706.185411.136676235.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:54:11 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au
Cc:	christophe@...ut.de, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Fixing up TCP/UDP checksum for UDP encap. ESP4 packets
 in transport mode

From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 09:40:08 +0800

> Hmm I deliberately didn't want to have this as the default because
> I want whoever that enables it to think about the implications.
> Having it on by default means that people will just set this up
> without realising that they're leaving the packet unprotected by
> checksums for a fraction of the path.
> 
> As I explained, it's almost impossible to use this without leaving
> the packet unprotected at least in one direction.
> 
> Having said that I'm fine with turning this into a sysctl or some
> global setting that's easier to enable.

Hmmm, aren't we talking about packets which were protected by either a
hash, strong encryption, or both at some point?
--
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