Bugtraq mailing list archives
Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP stack.
From: Crist Clark <crist.clark () GLOBALSTAR COM>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 16:28:21 -0800
bert hubert wrote: [snip]
I still feel that this is a pretty stupid oversight - if routing is switched off as it SHOULD or even MUST be on a host, this is not supposed to happen.
People keep saying this and I don't think they mean it. "ROUTING" is never turned off on host doing IP (at least I can't think of a counter- example). Your average host probably has a default route, it has a loopback route, lots of hosts have a m-cast route, etc. Multihomed hosts are always going to have even more complicated routing tables. I think you mean, "if FORWARDING is switched off..." -- Crist J. Clark Network Security Engineer crist.clark () globalstar com Globalstar, L.P.
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. 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)
- Message not available
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP stack. Lars Mathiesen (Mar 06)
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP stack. David Damerell (Mar 06)
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP stack. Martin Macok (Mar 06)
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP stack. 3APA3A (Mar 07)
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP stack. bert hubert (Mar 06)
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP stack. Crist Clark (Mar 06)
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP stack. Woody (Mar 06)
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP stack. Lupe Christoph (Mar 07)