FW: Simple DOS attack on FW-1

From: Michael Wojcik (Michael.Wojcikat_private)
Date: Thu Aug 05 1999 - 12:19:37 PDT

  • Next message: Matt: "FlowPoint DSL router vulnerability"

    As I recall, when SYN floods were first becoming a hot topic on
    comp.protocols.tcpip, the general consensus was to implement Random Early
    Drop rather than an LRU queue for incomplete connections for precisely this
    reason.  RED tends to drop malicious, rather than innocent, packets because
    they make up most of the packets in the queue.
    
    At the time, someone also pointed out that RED need not be implemented with
    any actual (pseudo-)randomness; just walking the queue with an appropriate
    step size and dropping each entry hit until the queue falls below the high
    water mark is sufficient.
    
    This was so widely discussed as a solution to SYN floods that I'm a bit
    surprised it hasn't popped up in this discussion.  Does FW-1 use RED to
    handle SYN floods?  Is there any reason why RED wouldn't work as well for
    the state table?
    
    (Someone earlier in this thread suggested that FTP relies on a one-hour
    timeout in the state table.  I couldn't find anything to confirm that in RFC
    959 or RFC 1123, but I'm not an FTP expert.)
    
    Michael Wojcik             michael.wojcikat_private
    MERANT International Inc.
    Department of English, Miami University
    
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Victoria E. Lease [mailto:leaseat_private]
    Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 1999 8:52 AM
    To: BUGTRAQat_private
    Subject: Re: Simple DOS attack on FW-1
    
    
    > On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Jeff Roberson wrote:
    > > Also, if they implemented a circular buffer where connections that had
    > > been idle the longest were disconnected in favor of new connections
    their
    > > scalability might increase some.
    
    Wouldn't this allow DoS attackers to not only keep new connections from
    being established, but also to forcefully close already-established valid
    connections? Or am I missing something?
    
    I think it might work, though, if non-established, ie only two of three
    handshakes completed, connections were kept in a circular buffer. That way,
    the worst abuse that could happen would be for DoS'ers to incur a *chance*
    of established connections failing, and they wouldn't be able to affect
    already-established connections. They'd have to keep hammering at the
    unestablished-connection buffer, and very quickly, too, in order to keep
    valid connections from making it through.
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Apr 13 2001 - 14:55:09 PDT