Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 23 Apr 2000 12:11:09 -0400 (EDT)
From:      Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG>
To:        Assar Westerlund <assar@sics.se>
Cc:        freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: netkill - generic remote DoS attack (fwd)
Message-ID:  <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1000423120520.3461B-100000@fledge.watson.org>
In-Reply-To: <5ln1mkom0h.fsf@assaris.sics.se>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 23 Apr 2000, Assar Westerlund wrote:

> Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG> writes:
> > Any idea what the default idle time before keepalives kick in is?
> 
> Is it really keep-alive that's interesting here?  Isn't it the
> retransmission timer?
> 
> If somebody is doing "mbuf exhaustion", we will have un-acked
> outstanding data.  And it should be the same case with "process
> saturation".

Regardless of the mechanism, presumably the goal would be to sever
connections early on if they aren't demonstrating decent properties. 
I.e., acknowledging data transmissions, et al.  So give them 30 seconds,
and if they haven't acknowledged anything, cut them off.  Far better than
the multi-minute delay, although still not ideal.

The reason for the keepalive timer suggestion was that it's already a
mechanism for detecting hosts that are not responding properly to TCP and
therefore should be disconnected.  Making it slightly more agressive early
in the connection would have the effect of weeding out hosts that build
connections to make a request, but then ``disappear''. 

Avoiding fragility and brittleness is a big issue, however.  For example,
unwillingness to accept data quickly is not the same as unwillingness to
accept data at all.  Of course, none of this solves the fundamental issue
with denial of service: if you offer a service that costs you something to
provide, and the capacity exists for someone to consume that service very
cheaply, then there is the opportunity for denial of service.  The goal is
to sufficiently raise the bar that denial of service is relatively costly
to perform, which can be done by reducing opportunities for flooding,
reducing vulnerability to the easy attack channels, et al. 

  Robert N M Watson 

robert@fledge.watson.org              http://www.watson.org/~robert/
PGP key fingerprint: AF B5 5F FF A6 4A 79 37  ED 5F 55 E9 58 04 6A B1
TIS Labs at Network Associates, Safeport Network Services



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96L.1000423120520.3461B-100000>