From: bert hubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 22:16:49 +0200
> Currently socket(PF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, IPPROTO_IP) delivers the exact same > source port each time I run it, 32776. The second invocation, without > closing the first socket, generates 32777. > > This strikes me as being somewhat insecure and not in the spirit of TCP > source port randomization. UDP does not have the same kind of vulnerability from port number guessing. In fact, UDP is extremely vulnerable for connected sockets no matter what we do in the port allocation area. UDP does not have sequence numbers, so there is nothing protecting an attacker from injecting random crap into a UDP connection. Another factor influencing this is the fact that most UDP usage is of the request/response type where the port identity only exists for those two packets. I really don't think it's worth the work to add UDP port randomization at all. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
