| To: | jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: tcp vulnerability? haven't seen anything on it here... |
| From: | Giuliano Pochini <pochini@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:46:05 +0200 (CEST) |
| Cc: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, cfriesen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Jörn Engel <joern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <1082640135.1059.93.camel@jzny.localdomain> |
| References: | <XFMail.20040422102359.pochini@shiny.it> <1082640135.1059.93.camel@jzny.localdomain> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, jamal wrote: > On Thu, 2004-04-22 at 04:23, Giuliano Pochini wrote: > > > Yes, but it is possible, expecially for long sessions. > > In other words, 80% or more of internet traffic would not be affected > still using http1.0 would not be affected. > And for something like a huge download to just regular joe, this is more > of a nuisance assuming some kiddie has access between you and the > server. No, TCP/IP is 100% vulnerable to the man-in-the-middle attach. There is no cure for that. Some devices or softwares called "firewall" are designed to cut or to modify connections. :) This vulnerability is about external attacks. -- Giuliano. |
| Previous by Date: | Re: tcp vulnerability? haven't seen anything on it here..., Richard B. Johnson |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: tcp vulnerability? haven't seen anything on it here..., Florian Weimer |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: tcp vulnerability? haven't seen anything on it here..., jamal |
| Next by Thread: | Re: tcp vulnerability? haven't seen anything on it here..., jamal |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |