From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 20 11:41:46 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1349216A4CE for ; Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:41:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp3b.sentex.ca (smtp3b.sentex.ca [205.211.164.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C269F43D1F for ; Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:41:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from avscan1.sentex.ca (avscan1.sentex.ca [199.212.134.11]) by smtp3b.sentex.ca (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i3KIfhEq003758; Tue, 20 Apr 2004 14:41:43 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from lava.sentex.ca (pyroxene.sentex.ca [199.212.134.18]) by avscan1.sentex.ca (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3KIfh3x018297; Tue, 20 Apr 2004 14:41:43 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from simian.sentex.net (simeon.sentex.ca [192.168.43.27]) by lava.sentex.ca (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i3KIfg48039704; Tue, 20 Apr 2004 14:41:42 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Message-Id: <6.0.3.0.0.20040420144001.0723ab80@209.112.4.2> X-Sender: mdtpop@209.112.4.2 (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.3.0 Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 14:43:25 -0400 To: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?= ) From: Mike Tancsa In-Reply-To: References: <6.0.3.0.0.20040420125557.06b10d48@209.112.4.2> <200404201113.27737.dr@kyx.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: TCP RST attack X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Security issues [members-only posting] List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 18:41:46 -0000 At 02:26 PM 20/04/2004, Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav wrote: >Dragos Ruiu writes: > > On April 20, 2004 10:44 am, Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav 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=20 programmatically go through the possible source ports in an attack ? That=20 only adds 2^16-1024 to blast through ---Mike >DES >-- >Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no