Hello,
I apologize in advance if this email bothers you, but I've not seen
any responses to the attached mail. If you don't mind, could you tell
us your opinion (or if you have an opinion at all) on this?
Thanks,
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello,
According to draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc2292bis-01.txt, it seems to me that
any users can set IPV6_REACHCONF cmsg type for an outgoing
UDP/raw-IPv6 packet.
However, this option might be dangerous in some situations. Consider
the following scenario:
- A node "A" resolves the link-layer address of another node "B", and
then starts communicating with B.
- After starting the communication, a malicious user opens a UDP
socket to B, and continuously sends packets to B with the
IPV6_REACHCONF option.
- Then the neighbor cache entry for B will never be stale, and NUD
will never occur even if B is down.
I'm not sure if we should regard such a scenario as a threat, but it
would be much safer to limit use of the option to privileged users.
I'd like to know your (and other implementors') opinion this.
Thanks.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
p.s. KAME's latest implementation has (experimentally) introduced the
restriction.
