netdev - Re: TCP socket receives strange packet

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: <20141014.125004.1504941413142780868.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Tue, 14 Oct 2014 12:50:04 -0400 (EDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	christoph.paasch@...il.com
Cc:	johnwheffner@...il.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
	Yurij.Plotnikov@...etlabs.ru, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Alexandra.Kossovsky@...etlabs.ru
Subject: Re: TCP socket receives strange packet

From: Christoph Paasch <christoph.paasch@...il.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 09:41:44 -0700

> there was a long discussion whether for the updated version of RFC1323 (now
> published as RFC 7323) a segment must be dropped if it does not contain a
> timestamp. The rationale (defended by Joe Touch) was that it must be there to
> protect against wrapped sequence numbers while others argued that mandating
> a drop might result in stalling connections if (for one reason or another) a
> host sends a segment without TS (or a middlebox removed it).
> 
> The RFC now says that a host SHOULD drop segments without timestamps.

There are too many middle-boxes that drop timestamps for that to be a tenable
way to behave, especially by default.

If you want to be disconnected from various parts of the internet, feel free
to follow that RFC's recommendations.
--
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