Valdis, you should back to Cretaceous period, because Oliver talks
about man-in-the-middle attack, not about blind TCP spoofing.
Randomized ISN doesn't protect against MitM.
--Thursday, October 25, 2007, 9:40:53 PM, you wrote to [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
VKve> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:09:47 PDT, Oliver said:
>> I have been searching all over the place to find an answer to this question,
>> but Google has made me feel unlucky these last few days. I hope I could find
>> more expertise here. The burning question I have been pondering over is -
>> could TCP connections be hijacked both ways?
VKve> Quick summary:
VKve> Steve Bellovin pointed out the issue. 19<stone age>
VKve> Kevin Mitnick exploited it. 19<bronze age>
VKve> Steve wrote RFC1948, which basically said "Use randomized ISNs so the
attacker
VKve> has to work harder at it". 1996.
VKve> A lot of vendors sort of implemented it. 1996-2000.
VKve> Michael Zalewski did a nice phase-space analysis and showed a lot of
vendors
VKve> botched it. http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/oldtcp/tcpseq.html 2000
VKve> A lot of vendors fixed their shit, but a lot didn't.
VKve> http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/newtcp/ 2001.
VKve> You're now caught up to 6 years ago.
--
~/ZARAZA http://securityvulns.com/
Впрочем, важнее всего - алгоритм! (Лем)
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
