netdev - Re: With regard to processing overlapping fragment 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 27 May 2020 10:30:42 +0900
From:   강유건 <yugun819@...pkinnet.com>
To:     Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: With regard to processing overlapping fragment packet

Thank you for explaining in detail and letting me know the website.

thanks to you, I learned a little about how to RFC works.


2020년 5월 26일 (화) 오후 4:54, Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>님이 작성:
>
> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 02:47:25PM +0900, 강유건 wrote:
> > Hello
> >
> > Actually, I'm not sure if it's right to send mail here.
> >
> > I'm testing ipv6ready Self Test 5.0.4 using linux-4.19.118 kernel.
> > ( https://www.ipv6ready.org.cn/home/views/default/resource/logo/phase2-core/index.htm
> > )
> >
> > Test failed in 82. Part B: Reverse Order Fragments ( Link-Local ) in
> > Section 1. spec
> >
> > In test 82, source transmits 3 fragment packets in reverse order that
> > are originally a icmpv6 packet.
> > There is an overlapping interval between the 2nd and 3rd packet.
> >
> > The test requires the destination MUST drop all packets and respond nothing,
> > but the dest replies Time Exceeded / Reassembly Timeout.
> >
> > I've read some /net/ipv6 codes and think when the kernel receives the
> > 2nd packet ( overlapping occurs ), it drops 3rd and 2nd packets and
> > recognizes the 1st packet as a new fragment packet.
> > ( Is it right ? )
> >
> > In RFC5722, when a node receives the overlapping fragment, it MUST
> > discard those not yet received. (  In this case, I think it applies to
> > 1st packet )
> >
> > Please let me know if I misunderstood RFC or if it wasn't implemented
> > in the kernel.
>
> You understood the requirement of the RFC correctly but the problem is
> that implementing it would be too complicated, would make the
> implementation susceptible to DoS attacks and could even result in
> dropping legitimate (new) fragments. Therefore an erratum to RFC 5722
> was accepted which drops the requirement to also drop fragments not
> received yet:
>
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid3089
>
> Michal



-- 


강 유 건 사원

펌킨네트웍스㈜ 개발1팀

08380 서울시 구로구 디지털로31길 20 에이스테크노타워 5차 405호

Direct: 070-4263-9937

Mobile: 010-9887-3517

E-mail: yugun819@...pkinnet.com

Tel: 02-863-9380, Fax: 02-2109-6675

www.pumpkinnet.co.kr