netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] Make netfilter handle .. perhaps offtopic

To: Peter Bieringer <pb@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make netfilter handle .. perhaps offtopic
From: Harald Welte <laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 13:20:08 +0100
Cc: kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <18030000.1012256998@localhost>; from pb@bieringer.de on Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 11:29:58PM +0100
References: <20020128191923.V26676@sunbeam.de.gnumonks.org> <200201281902.WAA01789@ms2.inr.ac.ru> <20020128202052.W26676@sunbeam.de.gnumonks.org> <18030000.1012256998@localhost>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.17i
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 11:29:58PM +0100, Peter Bieringer wrote:

> Therefore I think *all* "looking for interesting text in TCP streams"
> (FTP "PORT", Javascript tag, or something else which is interesting
> or important) should take care about that this string can be splitted
> between 2 packets. Otherwise the probability of "not hit because of
> splitted" will be not zero.

yes, it should.  But is it worth the extra effort??

> And this is imho a security issue. Think about e.g. (don't know, if
> ever possible, but) a special modified web server, which checks MTU
> and split candidates for filtering to do unwanted things...

In this case we are talking about NAT.  it's not connection tracking.

> mho: netfilter is (or should/will be hopefully) a stateful inspection
> engine comparable to (or better: superseed) the current market leader
> of commercial firewalls...therefore splitting of text between TCP
> packets should always be catched and no issue for perhaps later
> possibilities of upcoming security issues.

I agree that in a perfect world we would cover those cases, yes.

> Comments?
>         Peter

-- 
Live long and prosper
- Harald Welte / laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxx               http://www.gnumonks.org/
============================================================================
GCS/E/IT d- s-: a-- C+++ UL++++$ P+++ L++++$ E--- W- N++ o? K- w--- O- M- 
V-- PS+ PE-- Y+ PGP++ t++ 5-- !X !R tv-- b+++ DI? !D G+ e* h+ r% y+(*)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>