Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266216AbUIMG7a (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Sep 2004 02:59:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266221AbUIMG7a (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Sep 2004 02:59:30 -0400 Received: from g.r.o.s.s.stupendous.org ([80.126.179.10]:57605 "HELO quadpro.stupendous.org") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S266216AbUIMG73 (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Sep 2004 02:59:29 -0400 Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 08:59:27 +0200 From: Jurjen Oskam To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux 2.4.27 SECURITY BUG - TCP Local and REMOTE(verified)Denial of Service Attack Message-ID: <20040913065927.GA6100@quadpro.stupendous.org> Mail-Followup-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <02b201c498f6$8bb92540$0300a8c0@s> <002501c498f8$0a4ebc20$0200a8c0@wolf> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <002501c498f8$0a4ebc20$0200a8c0@wolf> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 907 Lines: 21 On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 12:40:56PM -0600, Wolfpaw - Dale Corse wrote: > the bug is application level in this case. Can you explain > though, how it is appropriate to have no timeout on CLOSE_WAIT. See TCP/IP Illustrated, Volume 1 by W. Richard Stevens (ISBN 0-201-63346-9), page 238: "TCP Half-Close". In short, you don't have a timeout on CLOSE_WAIT for the same reason you don't have a timeout on ESTABLISHED. -- Jurjen Oskam "I often reflect that if "privileges" had been called "responsibilities" or "duties", I would have saved thousands of hours explaining to people why they were only gonna get them over my dead body." - Lee K. Gleason, VMS sysadmin - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/