Re: [PATCH] tcp: Restore RFC5961-compliant behavior for SYN packets

[Neal Cardwell]

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Calvin Owens <calvinowens@xxxxxx> wrote:
> Commit c3ae62af8e755 ("tcp: should drop incoming frames without ACK
> flag set") was created to mitigate a security vulnerability in which a
> local attacker is able to inject data into locally-opened sockets by
> using TCP protocol statistics in procfs to quickly find the correct
> sequence number.
>
> This broke the RFC5961 requirement to send a challenge ACK in response
> to spurious RST packets, which was subsequently fixed by commit
> 7b514a886ba50 ("tcp: accept RST without ACK flag").
>
> Unfortunately, the RFC5961 requirement that spurious SYN packets be
> handled in a similar manner remains broken.
>
> RFC5961 section 4 states that:
>
>    ... the handling of the SYN in the synchronized state SHOULD be
>    performed as follows:
>
>    1) If the SYN bit is set, irrespective of the sequence number, TCP
>       MUST send an ACK (also referred to as challenge ACK) to the remote
>       peer:
>
>       <SEQ=SND.NXT><ACK=RCV.NXT><CTL=ACK>
>
>       After sending the acknowledgment, TCP MUST drop the unacceptable
>       segment and stop processing further.
>
>    By sending an ACK, the remote peer is challenged to confirm the loss
>    of the previous connection and the request to start a new connection.
>    A legitimate peer, after restart, would not have a TCB in the
>    synchronized state.  Thus, when the ACK arrives, the peer should send
>    a RST segment back with the sequence number derived from the ACK
>    field that caused the RST.
>
>    This RST will confirm that the remote peer has indeed closed the
>    previous connection.  Upon receipt of a valid RST, the local TCP
>    endpoint MUST terminate its connection.  The local TCP endpoint
>    should then rely on SYN retransmission from the remote end to
>    re-establish the connection.
>
> This patch lets SYN packets through the discard added in c3ae62af8e755,
> so that spurious SYN packets are properly dealt with as per the RFC.
>
> The challenge ACK is sent unconditionally and is rate-limited, so the
> original vulnerability is not reintroduced by this patch.
>
> Signed-off-by: Calvin Owens <calvinowens@xxxxxx>

Acked-by: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@xxxxxxxxxx>

neal
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/