netdev - Re: SNAT --random & fully is not actually random for ips

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: <20161128110651.GA1024@salvia>
Date:   Mon, 28 Nov 2016 12:06:51 +0100
From:   Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
To:     Denys Fedoryshchenko <nuclearcat@...learcat.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: SNAT --random & fully is not actually random for ips

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 12:45:59PM +0200, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I noticed that if i specify -j SNAT with options --random --random-fully
> still it keeps persistence for source IP.

So you specify both?

> Actually truly random src ip required in some scenarios like links balanced
> by IPs, but seems since 2012 at least it is not possible.
>
> But actually if i do something like:
> --- nf_nat_core.c.new	2016-11-28 09:55:54.000000000 +0000
> +++ nf_nat_core.c	2016-11-21 09:11:59.000000000 +0000
> @@ -282,13 +282,9 @@
>  	 * client coming from the same IP (some Internet Banking sites
>  	 * like this), even across reboots.
>  	 */
> -	if (range->flags & NF_NAT_RANGE_PROTO_RANDOM_FULLY) {
> -	    j = prandom_u32();
> -	} else {
> -	    j = jhash2((u32 *)&tuple->src.u3, sizeof(tuple->src.u3) / sizeof(u32),
> +	j = jhash2((u32 *)&tuple->src.u3, sizeof(tuple->src.u3) / sizeof(u32),
>  		   range->flags & NF_NAT_RANGE_PERSISTENT ?
>  			0 : (__force u32)tuple->dst.u3.all[max] ^ zone->id);
> -	}
> 
>  	full_range = false;
>  	for (i = 0; i <= max; i++) {
> 
> It works as intended. But i guess to not break compatibility it is better
> should be introduced as new option?
> Or maybe there is no really need for such option?

Why does your patch reverts NF_NAT_RANGE_PROTO_RANDOM_FULLY?