| To: | pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [BK PATCH] [IPV6] Merge Specification Conformity Improvements |
| From: | YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 14 Sep 2004 00:01:58 +0900 (JST) |
| Cc: | davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, vnuorval@xxxxxxxxxx, yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.LNX.4.44.0409131725250.22572-100000@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Organization: | USAGI Project |
| References: | <20040913.231732.94153456.yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0409131725250.22572-100000@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0409131725250.22572-100000@xxxxxxxxxx> (at Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:29:20 +0300 (EEST)), Pekka Savola <pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx> says: > However, if someone would be forging redirects, the comment would no > longer hold. > > I don't know the implications in this case: whether the code needs to > have different assumptions wrt. source of redirects, or whether this > is just a wording issue in the comment above. I think we're protected (at least) as the standards says. eg. - off-link attacks - redirect from non-router for the destination etc. I'm not sure if we have other things we can do against this issue. I think other on-link issues (including "forging" issues) will be solved by SEND (SEcuring Neighbor Discovery). --yoshfuji |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [BK PATCH] [IPV6] Merge Specification Conformity Improvements, Pekka Savola |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] BSD Jail LSM (2/3), Serge E. Hallyn |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [BK PATCH] [IPV6] Merge Specification Conformity Improvements, Pekka Savola |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [BK PATCH] [IPV6] Merge Specification Conformity Improvements, David S. Miller |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |