From: Fernando Gont (fernando.gontgmail.com)
Date: Tue Sep 02 2008 - 13:30:48 CDT

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

At 11:15 a.m. 02/09/2008, coderman wrote:

>On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 2:06 AM, Fernando Gont <fernando.gontgmail.com> wrote:
> > ... there's no description of what Windows does
>
>some things speak for themselves... :)

What speaks for itself?

Our work is a proposal for a few alternatives for doing port
randomization. Two of them are new, and are supposed to avoid some of
the problems that are usually caused by a trivial port randomization
algorithm (e.g., algorithm #1 and algorithm #2). Full stop. We simply
provide a small survey in case you ask yourself "what is being done
out there" by popular TCP implementations. The survey is simply an
appendix, and was added as I was examining the Linux and *BSD code myself.

> > Also, the base Linux system already implements Algorithm #3... why
> > ... patch
>
>if you seed/key #3 poorly, as just one example. (which you reference
>via RFC4086, etc)

If algorithm #3 is seeded poorly, then I think you should document
it, and send a patch so that that problem is fixed in the base system.

> > P.S.: The "survey" section must be about 1% of the document. I'd be glad to
> > hear comments on the rest of the document.
>
>sure... section #4 should be:
>s/should consider randomizing/must randomize/

If anything, it should be "should randomize". "MUSTs" are meant to
mandate specific behaviors/rules that, if not followed, would lead
to interoperability problems.

--
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernandogont.com.ar || fgontacm.org
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]