netdev - Re: [PATCH] Fix xfrm hash collisions by changing __xfrm4_daddr_saddr

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: <20090812.205635.244644770.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:56:35 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au
Cc:	joamaki@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix xfrm hash collisions by changing
 __xfrm4_daddr_saddr_hash to hash addresses with addition

From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:53:10 +1000

> Take corporate VPN servers for instance.  Yes each client is
> trusted to the extent that it is being offered connectivity to
> the corporate network.  However, it would not be ideal if one
> rogue client can take down the entire VPN server, especially
> in this case because repeatedly creating identical SAs can often
> occur purely by accident.

1) The client is on your private network, much more serious
   mischief is possible.

2) Whoever creates such a hash collision explosion can be
   precisely identified.

The ikev1 failure case is an interesting situation I hadn't
considered.

Maybe that can matter, but again the guilty party is easy to identify
and easy to block via whatever means appropriate.
--
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