Bugtraq mailing list archives
Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP stack.
From: Kyle Sparger <ksparger () DIALTONEINTERNET NET>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 18:03:04 -0500
Woody said:
Known Not Vulnerable: Linux - RH6.2 stock kernel
This information is incorrect; Linux does 'suffer' from this in at least version 2.2. I believe it also 'suffers' from this in 2.4. It's easy enough to replicate. For example, on ethernet, just assign a static MAC address for the IP in question for the server in question, and you'll get access to the appropriate interface. Elias Levy said:
Its obvious that host that implement the Weak ES model are the ones vulnerable, while hosts that implement the Strong ES model are not.
I had a similar discussion with the maintainers of the Linux stack a few months ago. The following quotes (both from Andi Kleen, a listed maintainer) apply here: "You're describing the Strong ES model (see 3.3.4.2). Linux 2.2 follows the weak ES model." "There are already enough mechanisms to enforce a stronger model if needed: reject routes, firewall rules, routing filter, arpfilter." ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ultimately, the 'expected' behaviour depends on how you view the addresses on the machine -- Are they system wide, or are they per-interface? -- and therein lies the debate of weak v. strong. Given that on UNIX-like systems one generally assigns an address to an interface (via ifconfig), IMO the 'expected' behaviour is that the strong model is what is implemented. The implication is certainly there. Thanks, Kyle Sparger - Senior System Administrator ksparger () dialtoneinternet net - http://www.dialtoneinternet.net Voice - (954) 581-0097 x 122 "Forget college, I'm going pro."
Current thread:
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP stack., (continued)
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP stack. Perry Harrington (Mar 05)
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP stack. ddowney (Mar 05)
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP stack. John Cronin (Mar 05)
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP stack. Ben Laurie (Mar 06)
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP stack. ddowney (Mar 05)
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP stack. Perry Harrington (Mar 05)
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP stack. Ben Laurie (Mar 06)
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP stack. Perry Harrington (Mar 06)
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP stack. Ben Laurie (Mar 06)
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP stack. Dan Harkless (Mar 06)
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP stack. Perry Harrington (Mar 05)
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP stack. MaD dUCK (Mar 05)
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP stack. J. Bol (Mar 06)
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP stack. Kyle Sparger (Mar 06)
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP stack. Kurt Seifried (Mar 06)
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP stack. Ben Laurie (Mar 06)
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP stack. David Litchfield (Mar 06)
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP stack. Robert Collins (Mar 06)
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP stack. Lincoln Yeoh (Mar 07)
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP stack. Lars Mathiesen (Mar 06)