Re: [tcpm] Congestion control in face of ICMP unreachable messages

Daniel Schaffrath <daniel.schaffrath@mac.com> Wed, 12 September 2007 18:23 UTC

Return-path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IVWsO-0006j9-V7; Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:23:48 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IVWsN-0006iX-Fj for tcpm@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:23:47 -0400
Received: from smtpoutm.mac.com ([17.148.16.78]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IVWsM-0006Lp-2o for tcpm@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:23:47 -0400
Received: from mac.com (smtpin08-en2 [10.13.10.153]) by smtpoutm.mac.com (Xserve/smtpout015/MantshX 4.0) with ESMTP id l8CINjhE011781; Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:23:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [137.226.12.157] (dhcp157.informatik.rwth-aachen.de [137.226.12.157]) (authenticated bits=0) by mac.com (Xserve/smtpin08/MantshX 4.0) with ESMTP id l8CINf0E016332 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:23:43 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <46E15C78.4080706@isi.edu>
References: <8B61F72F-2F75-4388-976F-9748F8784AB3@mac.com> <46C5CFA1.3090603@isi.edu> <443EB15A-FBED-4325-AD04-CCC39E989DDE@mac.com> <46E15C78.4080706@isi.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; delsp="yes"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <15CFCCD8-0CDD-4033-9B83-7C42AEEDD88A@mac.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Daniel Schaffrath <daniel.schaffrath@mac.com>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Congestion control in face of ICMP unreachable messages
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:23:27 +0200
To: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8b431ad66d60be2d47c7bfeb879db82c
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

On 2007/09/07  , at 16:13, Joe Touch wrote:
> Daniel Schaffrath wrote:
>> On 2007/08/17  , at 18:41, Joe Touch wrote:
>>> AFAIK, congestion control response to in-band messages (ACKs) and
>>> timeouts (implied loss, as TCP interprets it), as well as to some  
>>> new
>>> fields (ECN, etc.) which are carried in the same packets.
>>>
>>> Reactions to external congestion signals - ICMP source quench  
>>> (which has
>>> been informally deprecated a while ago, but has not been  
>>> documented as
>>> such yet) or otherwise - would constitute another opportunity for  
>>> a DOS
>>> attack, and seem like a bad idea to encourage.
>>
>> I am note sure your security concerns really apply :) If the bad user
>> controls the forwarding node, there is no need to rely on ICMP  
>> message
>> to cause harm. Instead, just dropping random segments would do the  
>> job.
>> If the bad user is off the forwarding node, she would need (as usual)
>> guess port and sequence numbers.
>
> Only port numbers. Sequence numbers strictly don't matter for ICMPs.
But that is under way, if I am not mistaken (draft-ietf-tcpm-icmp- 
attacks-02). And Linux for instance already implements it...

>> If she is able to guess right, she
>> might as well opt to send forged ACK dupacks to cause harm, or for an
>> ECN capable transport just one ECE marked ACK.
>
> ICMPs don't need to come from the endpoint IP address, i.e., address
> verification will prevent spoofed ACKs, but cannot prevent ICMPs,  
> since
> the latter need not have spoofed source addresses.
Ok, but if a router is (potentially) able to check for spoofed IP  
source addresses it could as well check for spoofed/illegal ICMP  
payloads (which contain both IP addresses) . Isn't that true?

Apart from that: how common is it to drop spoofed datagrams? It's  
probably a idealistic assumption, isn't it?

[...]

Thank you,
Daniel Schaffrath




_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm