On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 LARSJ@inel.gov wrote:
> This is a good line of thought that needs to be re-addressed every now
> and then, but I can remember discussing this exact attack ten years ago.
> There's even an RFC on it. RFC 1858 if memory serves.
Lars,
Nope. The set of attacks discussed in RFC1858 is indeed old, but has
nothing to do with the TCP/IP injection vector I have described. The
RFC1858 attacks describe firewall-bypassing attacks: "tiny fragment
attack", where a malicious TCP or UDP packet is sent in chunks too small
to be properly analyzed by the device; and "source porting", where the
header of a previously analyzed packet is modified by an overlapping
chunk.
Both techniques are old, well known and easy to prevent (and, indeed,
prevented by all modern implementations). The attack I described, for a
change, is not aimed at bypassing a firewall, and seems to be pretty damn
impossible to fix without breaking some functionality.
Cheers,
--
------------------------- bash$ :(){ :|:&};: --
Michal Zalewski * [http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx]
Did you know that clones never use mirrors?
--------------------------- 2003-12-15 20:02 --
http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/photo/current/
