netdev - Re: IPV6 loopback bound socket succeeds connecting to remote host

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]

Date:	Thu, 2 Dec 2010 07:45:48 +0000 (GMT)
From:	Albert Pretorius <albertpretorius@...oo.co.uk>
To:	Shan Wei <shanwei@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	"yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org >> YOSHIFUJI Hideaki" 
	<yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	pekkas@...core.fi, jmorris@...ei.org
Subject: Re: IPV6 loopback bound socket succeeds connecting to remote host

Hi

--- On Wed, 1/12/10, Shan Wei <shanwei@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> I think it make nonsense to translate data between loopback
> device and other e.g. eth0 device in same machine.

I agree, RFC4291 makes it clear for IPV6 that no interface should accept traffic from loopback, I should not have tried to make it behave like IPV4.
I can not find an equivalent statement for IPV4 though, all I could find is this from RFC3330:

   127.0.0.0/8 - This block is assigned for use as the Internet host
   loopback address.  A datagram sent by a higher level protocol to an
   address anywhere within this block should loop back inside the host.
   This is ordinarily implemented using only 127.0.0.1/32 for loopback,
   but no addresses within this block should ever appear on any network
   anywhere [RFC1700, page 5].

Do you perhaps know?
thank you,
Albert Pretorius

--
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