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: <1464367605.681310.620746281.74E342B0@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Date:	Fri, 27 May 2016 18:46:45 +0200
From:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To:	Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
	Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini.varadhan@...cle.com>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>
Subject: Re: IPv6 extension header privileges

On Thu, May 26, 2016, at 20:42, Tom Herbert 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...

Also I don't think that HbH options form some kind of hidden covert
channel. They mostly appear by unused fields which cannot be verified by
the other (receiving) side in any way.