[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240706170432.GA7766@breakpoint.cc>
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2024 19:04:32 +0200
From: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
To: Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@...ckhole.kfki.hu>
Cc: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>, yyxRoy <yyxroy22@...il.com>,
pablo@...filter.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
pabeni@...hat.com, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
coreteam@...filter.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, yyxRoy <979093444@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: conntrack: tcp: do not lower timeout to CLOSE
for in-window RSTs
Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@...ckhole.kfki.hu> wrote:
> I fully agree with Florian: conntrack plays the role of a middle box and
> cannot absolutely know the right seq/ack numbers of the client/server
> sides. Add NAT on top of that and there are a couple of ways to attack a
> given traffic. I don't see a way by which the checkings/parameters could
> be tightened without blocking real traffic.
I forgot about TCP timestamps, which we do not track at the moment.
But then there is a slight caveat: if one side exits, RST won't
carry timestamp option, so even keeping track of timestamps will help
:-(
Powered by blists - more mailing lists