From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Sep 16 17:19:11 2014
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0901F25F
 for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 17:19:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from calvin.ustdmz.roe.ch (calvin.ustdmz.roe.ch
 [IPv6:2001:1620:98f:face::26])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2F87E2C
 for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 17:19:10 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from roe (ssh-from [130.59.18.75])
 by calvin.ustdmz.roe.ch (envelope-from <daniel@roe.ch>)
 with LOCAL id 1XTwPC-000ISX-CD
 for freebsd-security@freebsd.org; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 19:19:06 +0200
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 19:19:06 +0200
From: Daniel Roethlisberger <daniel@roe.ch>
To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: FreeBSD Security Advisory FreeBSD-SA-14:19.tcp
Message-ID: <20140916171906.GB40056@calvin.ustdmz.roe.ch>
Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
References: <201409161014.s8GAE77Z070671@freefall.freebsd.org>
 <54180EBF.2050104@pyro.eu.org>
 <1410870926.3637266.168084441.4C997218@webmail.messagingengine.com>
 <44y4tjwvlm.fsf@lowell-desk.lan>
 <1410875348.3660913.168112729.18E69A9D@webmail.messagingengine.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1410875348.3660913.168112729.18E69A9D@webmail.messagingengine.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]"
 <freebsd-security.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-security>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-security/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-security@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 17:19:11 -0000

Mark Felder <feld@FreeBSD.org> 2014-09-16:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014, at 08:20, Lowell Gilbert wrote:
> > Spoofing traffic is pretty easy. The reason it isn't generally a problem
> > is that knowing what to spoof is more difficult. [I assume that's what
> > feld@ actually meant, but it's an important distinction.]
> 
> How many AS are out there don't implement BCP38? Spoofing these days
> without MITM should be considered hard, and TCP even harder, no? I'd
> find it more believable that it's easier to hijack BGP than to target
> someone and successfully spoof TCP.

FWIW, if that assumption about the BCP38 adoption rate were true,
then we would see less reflected DoS attacks than we actually do
these days.

-- 
Daniel Roethlisberger
http://daniel.roe.ch/