Re: possible issue with IPv4 mapped address and $REMOTE_ADDR in CGI

From: der Mouse (mouse_at_Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA)
Date: 10/29/03

  • Next message: Conectiva Updates: "[CLA-2003:773] Conectiva Security Announcement - libnids" 
    Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:06:55 -0500 (EST)
To: bugtraq@securityfocus.com

    > Now consider the logic required if you allow the use of mapped
    > addresses; [...]

    > It must be noted that this approach is generally simpler (and to my
    > mind, less error-prone), portable (certainly within *nix, though not
    > win32) and AF forwards-compatible.

    It's AF forwards-compatible only if every new AF includes a
    mapped-addresses version of all previous ones.

    I don't expect this to be true. Indeed, it isn't now, as far as I can
    tell, unless you restrict yourself to INET and INET6.

    Also, note that the application can get whichever set of semantics it
    prefers by explicitly setting the V6ONLY option on the socket; the
    tempest in a teapot is strictly about which way the default should be -
    and since there are OSes that disagree on the default, well-written
    application code won't depend on the default, instead explicitly
    setting the option whenever doing things the option affects.

    /~\ The ASCII der Mouse
    \ / Ribbon Campaign
     X Against HTML mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca
    / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B

  • Next message: Conectiva Updates: "[CLA-2003:773] Conectiva Security Announcement - libnids"