netdev - Re: [PATCH] TCP: add option for silent port knocking with integrity protection

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: <53F4765E.2040105@ahsoftware.de>
Date:	Wed, 20 Aug 2014 12:20:14 +0200
From:	Alexander Holler <holler@...oftware.de>
To:	Hagen Paul Pfeifer <hagen@...u.net>
CC:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Christian Grothoff <grothoff@...tum.de>,
	Jacob Appelbaum <jacob@...elbaum.net>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	knock@...net.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] TCP: add option for silent port knocking with integrity
 protection

Am 20.08.2014 11:47, schrieb Alexander Holler:
> Am 20.08.2014 11:28, schrieb Hagen Paul Pfeifer:
>> On 20 August 2014 11:07, Alexander Holler <holler@...oftware.de> wrote:
>>
>>> For sure it could be better, but I'm already happy with the current
>>> imperfect solution which I can use now and not some perfect solution
>>> which
>>> might be available in some years.
>>
>> Alexander, to make it clear: we cannot include mechanisms which
>> probably open other (security) issues. This is not how things work
>> out. TCP had so many issues in the past - regarding security,
>> implementation f*ups, etc. pp. It is utterly important that there is
>> no problem with an extension. Please join the discussion ob tcpm if
>> you will drive things forward. That's all what I can say - sorry!
>
> Maybe I first should send a million syn-packets to a box where I've
> enabled that feature. ;)
>
> Anyway, I still think there should be some room for experimental
> features in the kernel. It makes them more visible to possible
> contributors and helps to drive further development.
>
> Not necessarily in my case (as most people, I can't and don't want to
> participate in all parties), but ...

And as I've just read the archives of tcpm, I don't think it would help. 
Jacob Appelbaum already expressed everything I like to use this feature 
for, so most of the time I just had to send a +1 to Jacobs comments, 
which would be somewhat annoying. ;)

Regards,

Alexander Holler


--
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