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  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]
Date:	Tue, 14 Oct 2014 09:54:30 -0700
From:	Christoph Paasch <>
To:	David Miller <>
Subject: Re: TCP socket receives strange packet

On 14/10/14 - 12:50:04, David Miller wrote:
> From: Christoph Paasch <>
> 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.

I'm completely with you. We actually argued against Joe Touch, who wanted to
have a  "MUST" for dropping these segments without TS.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists