On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 04:10:05PM -0700, Darren Reed wrote:
> On 13/05/10 01:29 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> >On (05/13/10 13:25), Edward Pilatowicz wrote:
> >>>Currently, none, though the  "only ipv4 specified implies ipv6-addrs
> >>>are forbidden" approach solves that.  In retrospect,  that choices
> >>>seems simpler and cleaner. Is that preferable?
> >>>
> >>
> >>i think so.
> >
> >Ok, I'll send out an updated spec (that also incorporates Girish's
> >feedback) later this week.
> >
> >>>>- can exclusive stack zones manipulate mac addresses on network
> >>>>   interfaces?
> >>>
> >>>  yes- they can use 'ifconfig .. ether<..>'.
> >>>..  the address property only clamps dow the IP address,
> >>>and makes no promises about the mac address associated with the IP address.
> >>>
> >>
> >>given that one of the motivation for this work is to prevent zones from
> >>using addresses they shouldn't (and there by being capable of DOS-ing
> >>hosts using those addresses) it seems like we should have a zonecfg
> >>mechanism that prevents mac address manipulation.  i don't know if that
> >>should be bundled in with this proposed IP limiting mechanism (ie. if a
> >>user specifies an IP address the mac would automatically be locked down)
> >>or if there should be a seperate knob to control this.  thoughts?
> >
> >Rishi Srivatsavai is looking into the work entailed to have mac-nospoof
> >enabled for NGZ by default.. just talked to Rishi, and I think it makes
> >sense, as part of that work, to also ensure that the mac address cannot
> >be changed by ifconfig.
>
> It really doesn't matter what controls you put on changing any
> address via ifconfig if hostile behaviour is your concern. As long
> as I can open a raw socket for a NIC, I can pump whatever I like
> down the wire. To that end, the "allowed-ips" and "mac-nospoof"
> filtering in mac are required to prevent hostile behaviour from
> the local zone because they both actively filter all packets
> transmitted out of the NIC. This is why I earlier asked about
> whether or not net-rawaccess could be revoked for such zones.
>

as far as i can tell, if "allowed-ips" and "mac-nospoof" are used to
restrict the ip and mac addresses that a zone can use then that's good
enough.  removing net-rawaccess would be unnecessary because it wouldn't
buy us any more protection else.  removing net-rawaccess would actually
reduce the available functionality in the zone unnecessarily.  (for
example, the zone could no longer run snoop.)

ed
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-arc mailing list
[email protected]

Reply via email to