Great Circle Associates Firewalls
(June 1997)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: packet is too small
From: Ian Miller <firewalls @ scientia . com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 17:50:22 +0100
To: <firewalls @ greatcircle . com>

At 11:57 25/06/97 -0400, you wrote:
>In what way is the solution in RFC 1858 flawed?  
>
It states (section 3.2.2) "The indirect method relies on the observation
that when a TCP packet is fragmented so as to force 'interesting' header
fields out of the zero-offset fragment, there must exist a fragment with FO
equal to 1."

This is "observation" true where the fragments have been generated from a
complete packet by a spec. conforming IP stack.  However this isn't
necessarily true of a hacked IP stack.  As such it is unsafe to rely on this.  

>Is there a discussion of this anywhere I could look at?
Archives of this list, March 1996, subject "IP fragmentation attacks".

Ian


Indexed By Date Previous: Re: 33xxx Ports
From: "This guy here at this system..." <morrison @ ladyred . rsoc . rockwell . com>
Next: Checkpoint FW1 resources
From: Jay Aho <jaya @ netrex . com>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: packet is too small
From: "Eric V. Smith" <EricSmith @ windsor . com>
Next: Re: packet is too small
From: drexx @ pspi . com . ph (Drexx Laggui)

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com