IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Hmm. Interesting article...

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Tue, 02 February 2016 08:01 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1A111A8A41 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 00:01:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D2FPY83sEpNd for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 00:01:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B76E1A8A15 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 00:01:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.3.107] (unknown [181.165.125.191]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 70E27206A7C; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 09:01:28 +0100 (CET)
To: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>, "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
References: <165F7549-2A4C-44C3-9FBA-3AF69DE50110@cisco.com> <CAHw9_iLDjyZ6CKUjcyqUBe3-_EJxDekG7a1cPVLpF_U9tVvUgQ@mail.gmail.com> <56AFD626.1000802@bogus.com> <FBABBC18-CFFA-46C9-A63C-B86FE2CFFC94@cisco.com> <CAD6AjGSDrhAxanA=+q7+no3b9oT8FdK7CdGNo0_py=38DpzqnQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <56B06233.9070809@si6networks.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 05:00:51 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGSDrhAxanA=+q7+no3b9oT8FdK7CdGNo0_py=38DpzqnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/U9faY9GFIkVgPDizBka9rjm6M0Y>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Hmm. Interesting article...
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 08:01:34 -0000

On 02/01/2016 09:22 PM, Ca By wrote:
[....]
> 
>     However, that's not the issue the article is point out. It's
>     pointing out that if a harvested address used for an outbound
>     connection can also be used for an inbound connection, there is a
>     security vulnerability.
> 
>     Warren suggested making the address go away when it is no longer in use.
> 
>     I'm suggesting making the firewall in the host block incoming
>     connections to temporary addresses, which has the same effect
>     without the churn.
> 
> 
> Why is this firewall only for temp addresses ?
> 
> If the host is not listening on that port, why do you need a fw?

Among other reasons, because of this sort of thing:
<https://threatpost.com/freebsd-patches-kernel-panic-vulnerability/116001/>


-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email