netdev - Re: Fwd: RFC 6980 on Security Implications of IPv6 Fragmentation with IPv6 Neighbor Discovery

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: <CAOp4FwRx3c3deHXupWg3S0aWe4ZJnCT9ORKCWRvUUuxxt1gneQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 15 Aug 2013 14:14:46 +0400
From:	Loganaden Velvindron <loganaden@...il.com>
To:	Fernando Gont <fernando@...t.com.ar>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Fwd: RFC 6980 on Security Implications of IPv6 Fragmentation with
 IPv6 Neighbor Discovery

On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
<hannes@...essinduktion.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 03:28:41AM -0300, Fernando Gont wrote:
> > Thanks so much for your timely response! -- Please find my comments
> > in-line...
> >
> > On 08/14/2013 08:06 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 05:19:13AM -0300, Fernando Gont wrote:
> > >> Folks,
> > >>
> > >> FYI. -- this is an important piece when it comes to First Hop (i.e.,
> > >> "local link") Security.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the heads-up, Fernando!
> > >
> > > I sketched up a patch to protect the receiving side. I still don't know if I
> > > should make this behaviour default or configurable via a sysctl knob. I really
> > > don't want to break existing installations.
> >
> > Make it the default behavior. If anything, provide a sysctl knob to
> > override it.
> >
> > Note: In the specific case of NS/NA messages, it's impossible nowadays
> > to find them fragmented in a real network (we don't even have options
> > (other than padding) to make NS/NAs grow so large!).
>
> Yes, I also do favour making this the default behavior.
>
> > > As an extra plus, we now discard packets with nested fragment headers at once.
> > > Those packets should never have been accepted.
> >
> > Is that the "goto fail_hdr" part in your patch?
>
> Yes, still have to check if I should silently ignore them or generate a
> parameter problem (that is the current behavior).
>

I'm not sure if you got my previous mails, but I'd like to know a
couple of things:

1) How can I test this diff ?

2) It's developed against which git brach ? linux-next ?

3) What will/could break with this diff in a production environment ?


> >
> > P.S.: What about RS/RA messages?
>
>
> ndisc_rcv, which does now silently discard fragmented packets, is called
> for the following types:
>
>         case NDISC_ROUTER_SOLICITATION:
>         case NDISC_ROUTER_ADVERTISEMENT:
>         case NDISC_NEIGHBOUR_SOLICITATION:
>         case NDISC_NEIGHBOUR_ADVERTISEMENT:
>         case NDISC_REDIRECT:
>
> So all packet types from RFC6980 should be covered (we do not support SEND,
> yet).
>
> Thanks,
>
>   Hannes
>
> --
> 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




-- 
This message is strictly personal and the opinions expressed do not
represent those of my employers, either past or present.
--
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