Re: IPv4 mapped address considered harmful
From: Anthony DeRobertis (asd@suespammers.org)Date: 08/27/02
- Previous message: itojun@iijlab.net: "Re: IPv4 mapped address considered harmful"
- In reply to: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino: "IPv4 mapped address considered harmful"
- Next in thread: itojun@iijlab.net: "Re: IPv4 mapped address considered harmful"
- Reply: itojun@iijlab.net: "Re: IPv4 mapped address considered harmful"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: Anthony DeRobertis <asd@suespammers.org> To: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino <itojun@iijlab.net> Date: 27 Aug 2002 00:18:28 -0400
On Thu, 2002-08-22 at 12:18, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
> This ambiguity creates chances to malicious party to trick victim nodes.
> Here are a couple of examples:
How are these any different than with IPv4? I can send bad source
addresses in IPv4 just as easily as in IPv6. IPv6 might even make it
easier to do, e.g., reverse-path filtering (less prefixes to worry
about).
Any kernel that takes a packet saying it is from the local host
off the wire is broken.
Any firewall that allows through a packet from the Internet saying
it is from the LAN is broken.
- application/pgp-signature attachment: This is a digitally signed message part
- Previous message: itojun@iijlab.net: "Re: IPv4 mapped address considered harmful"
- In reply to: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino: "IPv4 mapped address considered harmful"
- Next in thread: itojun@iijlab.net: "Re: IPv4 mapped address considered harmful"
- Reply: itojun@iijlab.net: "Re: IPv4 mapped address considered harmful"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|