Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 16:31:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Don Lewis <truckman@FreeBSD.org> To: silby@silby.com, jayanth@yahoo-inc.com Cc: avalon@caligula.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] IETF Draft - Fix for TCP vulnerability (fwd) Message-ID: <200404212331.i3LNVE7E047907@gw.catspoiler.org> In-Reply-To: <20040421184539.H18583@odysseus.silby.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On 21 Apr, Mike Silbersack wrote: > > On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Don Lewis wrote: > >> > 1. Accept all RSTs meeting the criteria you just listed above. >> >> At this step, it would be better if we used the window size that was >> advertised it the last packet sent, since that is what the sequence >> number of the RST packet will be calculated from, while the window size >> could have increased if data was consumed from the receive queue between >> the time we sent the last packet and when we received the RST. >> >> It doesn't look like we keep the necessary data for this. Probably the >> easiest thing to do would be to calculate the expected sequence number >> in tcp_output() and stash it in the pcb. > > Do you have access to a system that exhibits the "RST at end of window" > syndrome so that you could code up and test out this part of the patch? Nope. The only report of this that I saw was from jayanth. Judging by the tcpdump timestamps, it looks like whatever this wierd piece of hardware was, it was nearby.home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200404212331.i3LNVE7E047907>