netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v4 0/3] path mtu hardening patches

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: <20140113.112504.922587457597727366.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Mon, 13 Jan 2014 11:25:04 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	hannes@...essinduktion.org
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
	johnwheffner@...il.com, steffen.klassert@...unet.com,
	fweimer@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 0/3] path mtu hardening patches

From: hannes@...essinduktion.org
Date: Thu,  9 Jan 2014 10:01:14 +0100

> After a lot of back and forth I want to propose these changes regarding
> path mtu hardening and give an outline why I think this is the best way
> how to proceed:

I'm not going to fight this any more even though I still disagree with
these changes.  John Heffner has not provided a coherent strong
argument for not doing this, in fact the counter arguments were
extremely vague.

I am pretty sure that now my worst fears will be realized and every
single distribution will not use the kernel's default, and everyone
will get this behavior rather than adminstrators making well informed
decisions about how to defend against these kind of situations when
enabling routing, or whether they'd even be exposed to the issue at
all in a particular setup.

Such is life.
--
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