At 11:15 a.m. 02/09/2008, coderman wrote: >On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 2:06 AM, Fernando Gont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ... there's no description of what Windows does > >some things speak for themselves... :)
What speaks for itself? Our work is a proposal for a few alternatives for doing port randomization. Two of them are new, and are supposed to avoid some of the problems that are usually caused by a trivial port randomization algorithm (e.g., algorithm #1 and algorithm #2). Full stop. We simply provide a small survey in case you ask yourself "what is being done out there" by popular TCP implementations. The survey is simply an appendix, and was added as I was examining the Linux and *BSD code myself. > > Also, the base Linux system already implements Algorithm #3... why > > ... patch > >if you seed/key #3 poorly, as just one example. (which you reference >via RFC4086, etc) If algorithm #3 is seeded poorly, then I think you should document it, and send a patch so that that problem is fixed in the base system. > > P.S.: The "survey" section must be about 1% of the document. I'd be glad to > > hear comments on the rest of the document. > >sure... section #4 should be: >s/should consider randomizing/must randomize/ If anything, it should be "should randomize". "MUSTs" are meant to mandate specific behaviors/rules that, if not followed, would lead to interoperability problems. -- Fernando Gont e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] || [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
