Merit Network
Can't find what you're looking for? Search the Mail Archives.
  About Merit   Services   Network   Resources & Support   Network Research   News   Events   Home

Discussion Communities: Merit Network Email List Archives

North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Cisco's Statement about IPR Claimed in draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure

  • From: Todd Vierling
  • Date: Thu May 13 13:13:20 2004

On Thu, 13 May 2004 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:

: Well.. you have to remember that we live in an environment where people
: are *just* noticing that RFC793 says "The RST has to be in the window,
: not dead on".

Right, and 32 - <window bits> + <random port bits> in a /reasonable/
implementation totals at least 28 [bits that must be guessed by the
attacker].

Whereas the Internet-Draft claims, by assuming that both source and dest
ports are knowns, the number of bits required for the attack is 16 (or even
lower) and thus can cause connection resets "even at DSL speed."

A 2^[28..33] problem is much more difficult to attack than a 2^[14..16]
problem.  It's amazing that such a cheap source of entropy -- randomizing
the source port appropriately -- is being so readily discounted.

(In case you're curious, 2^33 is achievable for things like BGP, where it's
not certain which end initiated the connection.  You get one extra bit for
the originator choice, on top of a fully randomized 16-bit port and a 16-bit
window size:  2^33.)

-- 
-- Todd Vierling <tv@duh.org> <tv@pobox.com>




Discussion Communities


About Merit | Services | Network | Resources & Support | Network Research
News | Events | Contact | Site Map | Merit Network Home


Merit Network, Inc.