netdev - Re: IPv6 extension header privileges

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: <20160527150318.GA25040@oracle.com>
Date:	Fri, 27 May 2016 11:03:18 -0400
From:	Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini.varadhan@...cle.com>
To:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
Cc:	Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>
Subject: Re: IPv6 extension header privileges

On (05/27/16 11:53), Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> > Thinking about this some more, the per option white list is a better
> > approach. If we allow an open ended mechanism for applications to
> > signal the network with arbitrary data (like user specified hbp
> > options would be), then use of that mechanism will inevitably
> > exploited by some authorities to force user to hand over private data
> > about their communications. It's better to not build in back doors to
> > security...
> 
> Sorry, Tom, can you try to explain again, I think I might not have
> understood you correctly.

yes, me too. Might help to discuss this by looking at an instance
of the type of option we are talking about. 

Usually hbh options are handled in the forwarding path (and thus
as unpopular as ip options, since they derail the packet to the 
slow path). Are you suggesting some type of AAA to vet the hbh 
option itself?

--Sowmini