Great Circle Associates Firewalls
(April 1995)
 

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

Subject: Re: UDP
From: smb @ research . att . com
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 95 07:45:44 EDT
To: Darren Reed <avalon @ coombs . anu . edu . au>
Cc: phil @ netpart . com (Phil Trubey), firewalls @ greatcircle . com

	 No, you just have to tell named to only bind to one interface.

	 No kernel hacking required.

	 IF I have le0 10.1.1.1 and le1 10.2.1.1, bind()'ing to port 53 with
	 10.1.1.1 does not bind() to 10.2.1.1.

	 As I mentioned in mail elsewhere about this, named will bind to *all*
	 combinations of valid port references for your machine.  This means it
	 will bind to
	 	* 127.0.0.1, port 53 (lo0)
	 	* 0.0.0.0, port 53
	 	* 10.1.1.1, port 53 (le0)
	 and
	 	* 10.2.1.1, port 53 (le1)

	 without any kernel hacks.  Most programs will just bind to
	 "0.0.0.0.port" when they create a socket so that they don't need to
	 worry about which interface things are on.

Yes and no.  You're quite right that one can bind to a specific port
without any kernel surgery.  But a packet arriving on interface 10.1.1.1
can still reach a socket bound to 10.2.1.1, which is often undesirable
from a security perspective.  This is fixable, too, but only in the kernel.
I sketched out a design for doing this a few years ago; if you're interested,
see ftp://ftp.research.att.com/dist/smb/sessext.ps.Z  (thought it's only
a small part of a longer paper).

Indexed By Date Previous: Re: firewall performance limitations (fwd)
From: fc @ all . net (Dr. Frederick B. Cohen)
Next: Re: UDP
From: Darren Reed <avalon @ coombs . anu . edu . au>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: UDP
From: Darren Reed <avalon @ coombs . anu . edu . au>
Next: Re: UDP
From: Darren Reed <avalon @ coombs . anu . edu . au>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com