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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.00.1003191026150.9778@netcore.fi>
Date:	Fri, 19 Mar 2010 10:28:45 +0200 (EET)
From:	Pekka Savola <pekkas@...core.fi>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
cc:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: Generalized TTL Security Mechanism

On Fri, 19 Mar 2010, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> This requires that any router in the path between the client and server
> also respects the MINTTL when sending ICMP. Not sure how practical it
> is...

You're correct that with multihop GTSM, ICMP becomes trickier.  I'm 
not sure how applicable GTSM is really in multihop scenarios, though. 
I would not recommend using it to secure e.g. with minttl=250 or 
something that uncontrollable. Your comment relates mainly to ICMP 
soft/hard errors which are not critical for correct operation. 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-icmp-attacks-11 discusses 
this.

-- 
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