nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6/IPv6 threat Comparison Paper available for review
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch () muada com>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 11:31:33 +0200
On 11-mei-04, at 11:19, itojun () iijlab net wrote:
- Smurf
I don't think you mention that in IPv6, there are no mechanisms that allow an incoming unicast packet to be turned into a broadcast or multicast packet, and as such, smurf-like attacks are impossible.
There are cases where malicious IPv6 packet leads to IPv4 smurf attack (due to wacky IPv4 mapped address and API). i think it worthwhile to look at threats due to IPv4/v6 interaction.
You can obviously craft an IPv6 packet that will be delivered to an IPv4 subnet broadcast address through 6to4 or some such, but unless the hosts that receive the subsequent broadcast (that shouldn't be generated unless v4 isn't properly administered in the first place so it's still not an IPv6 issue) reply with something, nothing is going to happen.
draft-itojun-ipv6-transition-abuse-xx.txt draft-cmetz-v6ops-v4mapped-api-harmful-xx.txt draft-itojun-v6ops-v4mapped-harmful-xx.txt
Yeah, yeah, everything is harmful. I don't think having IPv4-specific and IPv6-specific code in applications is the answer, though.
Current thread:
- IPv6/IPv6 threat Comparison Paper available for review Darrin Miller (May 10)
- Re: IPv6/IPv6 threat Comparison Paper available for review Iljitsch van Beijnum (May 11)
- RE: IPv6/IPv6 threat Comparison Paper available for review Tony Hain (May 13)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: IPv6/IPv6 threat Comparison Paper available for review Iljitsch van Beijnum (May 11)
- Re: IPv6/IPv6 threat Comparison Paper available for review Iljitsch van Beijnum (May 11)