On April 20, 2004 11:43 am, Mike Tancsa wrote: > At 02:26 PM 20/04/2004, Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav wrote: > >Dragos Ruiu <[email protected]> writes: > > > On April 20, 2004 10:44 am, Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav wrote: > > > > The advisory grossly exaggerates the impact and severity of this > > > > fea^H^H^Hbug. The attack is only practical if you already know the > > > > details of the TCP connection you are trying to attack, or are in a > > > > position to sniff it. > > > > > > This is not true. The attack does not require sniffing. > > > >You need to know the source and destination IP and port. In most > >cases, this means sniffing. BGP is easier because the destination > >port is always 179 and the source and destination IPs are recorded in > >the whois database, but you still need to know the source port. > > While true, you do need the source port, how long will it take to > programmatically go through the possible source ports in an attack ? That > only adds 2^16-1024 to blast through Also keep in mind ports are predictable to varying degrees depending on the vendor or OS, which further reduces the brute force space you have to=20 go though without sniffing. That's what this thing boils down to imho - the space you have to blast through, the time you have to do it in, and=20 the bandwidth/rate available to do it. And there are competing factors, and questions about what are the real world values. I'm still waiting on final answers... cheers, =2D-dr =2D-=20 Top security experts. Cutting edge tools, techniques and information. Vancouver, Canada April 21-23 2004 http://cansecwest.com pgpkey http://dragos.com/ kyxpgp _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"