https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2636
Darren Tucker <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] --- Comment #3 from Darren Tucker <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Tomas Kuthan from comment #0) [...] > When this particular error is returned by bind, it is safe to > continue with the next address returned by getaddrinfo(), because in > that case there is no risk of forwarded X11 connections being > hijacked (CVE-2008-1483). No, there is still a risk, eg if the IPv6 address loopback is added after a connection is made. getaddrinfo w/AI_PASSIVE should not return non-existent addresses. Quoting RFC3493: If the AI_PASSIVE flag is specified, the returned address information shall be suitable for use in binding a socket for accepting incoming connections for the specified service (i.e., a call to bind()). In this case the returned address is not suitable to bind because it'll never work (unless you race bring up the interface). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching the assignee of the bug. You are watching someone on the CC list of the bug. _______________________________________________ openssh-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mindrot.org/mailman/listinfo/openssh-bugs
