Chinaunix首页 | 论坛 | 博客
  • 博客访问: 5695246
  • 博文数量: 675
  • 博客积分: 20301
  • 博客等级: 上将
  • 技术积分: 7671
  • 用 户 组: 普通用户
  • 注册时间: 2005-12-31 16:15
文章分类

全部博文(675)

文章存档

2012年(1)

2011年(20)

2010年(14)

2009年(63)

2008年(118)

2007年(141)

2006年(318)

分类: 网络与安全

2007-05-01 22:23:47

TCP is the transport layer protocol designed to provide connection-oriented reliable delivery of IP packets. To do this TCP uses a mixture of flags, to indicate state, and sequence numbers, to identify the order in which the packets are to be reassembled.

TCP also provides a number, called an acknowledgement number, that is used to indicate the sequence number of the next packet expected. The packets are reassembled by the receiving TCP implementation only if their sequence numbers fall within a range of the acknowledgement number (called a "window"). The acknowledgement number is not used in a RST packet because a reset does not expect a packet in return. (To be completely accurate, although the last statement is true for a RST packet without the ACK flag set, used to indicate that a TCP port is closed, a RST/ACK is used to terminate an active connection in the event of error. In a RST/ACK packet an acknowledgement number is included in the packet, although it is not checked by the receiving TCP implementation.)

RFC 793, p36, states the following:

"In all states except SYN-SENT, all reset (RST) segments are validated by checking their SEQ-fields [sequence numbers]. A reset is valid if its sequence number is in the window. In the SYN-SENT state (a RST received in response to an initial SYN), the RST is acceptable if the ACK field acknowledges the SYN."

Resets must be processed immediately. RFC 793, p25, says "[.] [E]ven when the receive window is zero, a TCP must process the RST and URG fields of all incoming segments."

It is also possible to perform the same attack with SYN (synchronise) packets. An established connection will abort by sending a RST if it receives a duplicate SYN packet with initial sequence number within the TCP window. RFC 793, p31 states:

"The principle reason for the three-way handshake is to prevent old duplicate connection initiations from causing confusion. To deal with this, a special control message, reset, has been devised. [.] If the TCP is in one of the synchronized states (ESTABLISHED, FIN-WAIT-1, FIN-WAIT-2, CLOSE-WAIT, CLOSING, LAST-ACK, TIME-WAIT), it aborts the connection and informs its user."

TCP window sizes are negotiated in the initial 3-way handshake used to set up a TCP connection, with higher values serving to improve throughput in some circumstances. Vendor-chosen defaults also influence the selection. In any case, the larger the window size, the greater is the probability that a randomly chosen TCP sequence number will lie within the window range. This is the basis for the attack.

A TCP connection is defined by a 4-tuple comprising source and destination IP addresses, and source and destination ports. An attacker seeking to disrupt an existing TCP connection must supply the 4-tuple correctly. As the source port varies, additional work is generally called for on the part of the attacker. However, research (referenced below) has shown that the process of source port selection on many platforms includes predictable elements, so that the attack remains practicable. By weighting 'likely' source port values carefully, an attacker can disrupt TCP implementations that employ a range of window sizes.

Application layer protocols that are critically affected are those that:

  • Depend on long lived TCP connections
  • Have known or easy-to-guess IP address end points
  • Have easy to an easy-to-guess source TCP port

As noted above BGP does use long lived TCP connections, and the IP addresses and source port (and destination port) are sometimes available through the use of BGP looking glasses (multi-source, multi-destination trace route tools) or DNS resource records. Using "trace route" commands can provide information on peering point IP addresses. Thus BGP is likely to be critically affected by the TCP vulnerability.

These denial of service attacks can be carried out by single machine, or by multiple co-operating systems (to form a distributed denial of service attack).

It is also possible to inject packets, which will be processed if they are in the window. The difficulty with data injection attacks is that the receiving TCP implementation will reassemble the packets received according to sequence number, dropping any duplicate packets.

Vendor specific information will be released as it becomes available and if vendor permission has been received. Subscribers are advised to check the following URL regularly for updates:

[Please note that updates to this advisory will not be notified by email.]

This vulnerability has been assigned the CVE name CAN-2004-0230.
[]

The Open Source Vulnerability Database ID number for this vulnerability is
4030. []


阅读(1951) | 评论(0) | 转发(0) |
给主人留下些什么吧!~~