[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20110928.191255.1803703769504267178.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 19:12:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: fbl@...hat.com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ICMP redirect issue
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 18:56:54 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Flavio Leitner <fbl@...hat.com>
> Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 17:19:52 -0300
>
>> What about something like below? It will change a bit the
>> secure_redirects documentation.
>
> The previous check was stronger, and served other purposes.
>
> Firstly, it required that the spoofer know the exact gateway
> IP address we used previously, whereas your test requires only
> knowing the subnet which is easier to figure out.
>
> But more importantly, the old test allowed us to ignore outdated
> or erroneous redirects.
>
> We really have to restore the original behavior before my inetpeer
> changes (enforce that the old gateway matches), and find another way
> to accomodate IPVS.
BTW, I just double-checked RFC1122 and it explicitly specifies the
old_gw check:
[ RFC1122, section 3.2.2.2 ]
...
A Redirect message SHOULD be silently discarded if the new
gateway address it specifies is not on the same connected
(sub-) net through which the Redirect arrived [INTRO:2,
Appendix A], or if the source of the Redirect is not the
current first-hop gateway for the specified destination (see
Section 3.3.1).
In fact, it's saying that we should also validate that saddr == old_gw
too.
So really, we need to put the check back and find a way to accomodate IPVS.
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists