Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list netdev); Thu, 22 Apr 2004 10:39:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from inti.inf.utfsm.cl (inti.inf.utfsm.cl [200.1.21.155]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with SMTP id i3MHdPKO025988 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 10:39:27 -0700 Received: from eeyore.valparaiso.cl (laptop16.inf.utfsm.cl [200.1.19.250]) by inti.inf.utfsm.cl (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3MHcihk011356; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 13:38:44 -0400 Received: from eeyore.valparaiso.cl (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eeyore.valparaiso.cl (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3MHciO9005239; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 13:38:44 -0400 Received: from eeyore.valparaiso.cl (vonbrand@localhost) by eeyore.valparaiso.cl (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) with ESMTP id i3MHcg7J005234; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 13:38:43 -0400 Message-Id: <200404221738.i3MHcg7J005234@eeyore.valparaiso.cl> To: alex@pilosoft.com Cc: jamal , Linux Kernel Mailing List , netdev@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: tcp vulnerability? haven't seen anything on it here... In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 22 Apr 2004 11:27:05 -0400." X-Mailer: MH-E 7.4.2; nmh 1.0.4; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 14) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 13:38:42 -0400 From: Horst von Brand X-archive-position: 4856 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com X-original-sender: vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl Precedence: bulk X-list: netdev Content-Length: 1536 Lines: 29 alex@pilosoft.com said: > > > > Unless i misunderstood: You need someone/thing to see about 64K > > > > packets within a single flow to make the predicition so the attack > > > > is succesful. Sure to have access to such capability is to be in a > > > > hostile path, no? ;-> > > > No, you do not need to see any packet. > > Ok, so i misunderstood then. How do you predict the sequences without > > seeing any packet? Is there any URL to mentioned paper? > You don't - just brute-force the tcp 4-tuple and sequence number. The > attack relies on the fact that you don't have to match sequence number > exactly, which cuts down on the search-space. (If total search space is > 2^32, rwin is 16k, effective attack search space is 2^32/16k). Multiplied > by number of ephemeral ports, it becomes *feasible* but still not very > likely. If everybody (or at least the bigger knots) filters spoofed traffic, this ceases to be a problem. And that solves a shipload of other problems, so... If the cracker has access to the connection between routers (quite unlikely for BGP), there is other, lower-hanging, fun to be had... and in that case they can just read the exact data from the stream, no guessing needed at all. And no protection possible either AFAICS. -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513