Re: [tcpm] WG Last Call for ICMP Attacks

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Wed, 02 September 2009 23:05 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@ISI.EDU>
X-Original-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C286228C328 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Sep 2009 16:05:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id txCa0qPpYIws for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Sep 2009 16:05:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA8143A6EDF for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Sep 2009 16:05:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [75.213.81.255] ([75.213.81.255]) (authenticated bits=0) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n82N5AwG013366 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 2 Sep 2009 16:05:12 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4A9EFA25.8080203@isi.edu>
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:05:09 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Smith, Donald" <Donald.Smith@qwest.com>
References: <F1534040-EA0D-44E4-98F7-67C24CD12CCF@windriver.com> <B01905DA0C7CDC478F42870679DF0F1005B64E383D@qtdenexmbm24.AD.QINTRA.COM> <4A9EDEDD.2030308@isi.edu> <B01905DA0C7CDC478F42870679DF0F1005B64E385A@qtdenexmbm24.AD.QINTRA.COM>
In-Reply-To: <B01905DA0C7CDC478F42870679DF0F1005B64E385A@qtdenexmbm24.AD.QINTRA.COM>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: 'tcpm Extensions WG' <tcpm@ietf.org>, 'David Borman' <david.borman@windriver.com>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] WG Last Call for ICMP Attacks
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2009 23:05:50 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



Smith, Donald wrote:
...
> "ICMP packet with falsified content" would be a good description.

Sounds better to me.

Joe

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Joe Touch [mailto:touch@ISI.EDU] 
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 3:09 PM
>> To: Smith, Donald
>> Cc: 'David Borman'; 'tcpm Extensions WG'
>> Subject: Re: [tcpm] WG Last Call for ICMP Attacks
>>
> 
> 
> Smith, Donald wrote:
>>>> 1.
>>>> ICMP [RFC0792] is a fundamental part of the TCP/IP protocol suite,
>>>>    and is used mainly for reporting network error conditions.
>>>>
>>>> ICMP is part of the IP protocol suite.
>>>>
>>>> 2.2
>>>> Therefore, in the case of TCP, an attacker could send a forged ICMP
>>>>    message to the attacked system, and, as long as he is 
> able to guess
>>>>    the four-tuple (i.e., Source IP Address, Source TCP 
> port, Destination
>>>>    IP Address, and Destination TCP port) that identifies the
>>>>    communication instance to be attacked, he will be able 
> to use ICMP to
>>>>    perform a variety of attacks.
>>>>
>>>> Forged usually implies that source ip address has been 
> spoofed usually to come from some type of trusted host.
>>>> Crafted is the term generally used to mean the packets 
> contents (not header) were modified.
>>>> In this case there is no need to spoof the source ip 
> address as the end host has no knowledge about the routers in 
> between them and the end host system. So I recommend you 
> change forged to crafted.
> 
> I've not heard that there was such clarity on the term forged or
> crafted, but neither is the case here.
> 
> The attacker emits an ICMP message. It doesn't need a 
> falsified header.
> It doesn't need to be a "modified" packet. E.g., it can be 
> created based
> on information seen on the media.
> 
> It might just be called a "false ICMP message", i.e., it's 
> reporting an
> event that didn't happen.
> 
> Joe
>>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkqe+iUACgkQE5f5cImnZrs8RQCfVKb2M78n3eZfy32Fy3gpq6Jv
V5sAoOu3p+aLhut9Nsx0I6t4BWbDUJbD
=xri6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----