netdev - Re: [PATCH] tcp: Generalized TTL Security Mechanism

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: <alpine.LRH.2.00.1003190837210.6428@netcore.fi>
Date:	Fri, 19 Mar 2010 09:58:09 +0200 (EET)
From:	Pekka Savola <pekkas@...core.fi>
To:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: Generalized TTL Security Mechanism

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>> The experimental, earlier spec (GTSH, RFC3682) did not have this
>> requirement.  Most if not all implementations support only GTSH mode.
>> So a backward-compatibility option may be desirable.
>
> The ICMP receive error handling does need to be updated.
>
> But any application using GTSM should be setting IP_TTL socket option
> to set send TTL. But, not sure if Linux TCP ever sends ICMP
> for existing sessions at all.

Thanks, Stephen!  It's nice to see at least one compliant RFC5082 
implementation ;-)

Good point that no one should should probably even be sending ICMP 
messages for TCP sockets, but on receive side the checks are important 
:-)

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
--
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