Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 14:43:25 -0400 From: Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net> To: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?= ) Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: TCP RST attack Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040420144001.0723ab80@209.112.4.2> In-Reply-To: <xzp65buh5fa.fsf@dwp.des.no> References: <6.0.3.0.0.20040420125557.06b10d48@209.112.4.2> <xzphdve35oa.fsf@dwp.des.no> <200404201113.27737.dr@kyx.net> <xzp65buh5fa.fsf@dwp.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 02:26 PM 20/04/2004, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
>Dragos Ruiu <dr@kyx.net> writes:
> > On April 20, 2004 10:44 am, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> > > The advisory grossly exaggerates the impact and severity of this
> > > fea^H^H^Hbug. The attack is only practical if you already know the
> > > details of the TCP connection you are trying to attack, or are in a
> > > position to sniff it.
> > This is not true. The attack does not require sniffing.
>
>You need to know the source and destination IP and port. In most
>cases, this means sniffing. BGP is easier because the destination
>port is always 179 and the source and destination IPs are recorded in
>the whois database, but you still need to know the source port.
While true, you do need the source port, how long will it take to
programmatically go through the possible source ports in an attack ? That
only adds 2^16-1024 to blast through
---Mike
>DES
>--
>Dag-Erling Smørgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6.0.3.0.0.20040420144001.0723ab80>