Re: Linux kernel 2.4 "weak end host" issue Explained

From: Matthew G. Marsh (mgmat_private)
Date: Tue May 14 2002 - 07:47:22 PDT

  • Next message: ERRor: "dH team & SECURITY.NNOV: A variant of "Word Mail Merge" vulnerability"

    Note to Moderator:  I can provide a more detailed explanation for the
    commands cited below but feel it may not be of interest to the broader
    public. If you would prefer.
    
    -----
    
    On Thu, 9 May 2002, Felix von Leitner wrote:
    
    > A service bound to the IP of eth1 is still visible from eth0.
    > This is not an RFC violation (RFC1122 calls this "weak end host"), but
    > it is unexpected for most Linux users, and the very reason why people
    > bind a service to the IP of a specific network interface usually is to
    > make sure it can only be used from that interface (DHCP, samba, squid
    > and intranet web servers come to mind).
    
    Any Linux users who think this way are sadly misinformed as to how IPv4
    works in general. This is expected and normal behaviour for Linux. Stating
    otherwise reveals a deep disregard for the variety of structure and
    definition of IPv4 and an assumption that there is only one true way.
    Bluntly put - the world is not BSD nor is it Microsoft. Read the RFCs and
    learn how IPv4 works.
    
    IP adresses have nothing to do with physical interfaces. An IP address (or
    indeeed any generalized location structure name) defines the contact point
    for a service. All references to binding exist due to this fundamental
    fact of addressing. That is why ARP exists in the first place. ARP is a
    protocol to allow communication over Layer 2 (DataLink) to occur as
    required (think raw ethernet/token ring) between a Service and Requestor.
    
    > This is not an ARP issue.  Making the kernel stop answering to ARP
    > requests will not make it harder for an attacker to reach the service.
    
    Correct. [snip]
    
    > There is a Linux
    > specific kludge^Whack^Wmethod to bind to an interface, but I am not
    > aware of any software using it.  If you have multi homed hosts and rely
    > on a service bound to eth1 not being visible to eth0, you need to use
    > netfilter or this patch!
    
    No. Due to the unparalleled scope and breadth of Linux IPv4 networking you
    simply can change the behaviour through routing. Example:
    
    eth0 = 1.1.1.1/24
    eth1 = 2.2.2.2/24
    
    ip rule add from 1.1.1.1/32 dev lo table 1 prio 15000
    ip rule add from 2.2.2.2/32 dev lo table 2 prio 16000
    
    ip route add default dev eth0 table 1
    ip route add default dev eth1 table 2
    
    If anyone would like more detailed explanations of this subject please
    feel free to email me. Linux IPv4 routing contains a wealth of power under
    the hood.
    
    > Felix
    
    --------------------------------------------------
    Matthew G. Marsh,  President
    Paktronix Systems LLC
    1506 North 59th Street
    Omaha  NE  68104
    Phone: (402) 932-7250 x101
    Email: mgmat_private
    WWW:  http://www.paktronix.com
    --------------------------------------------------
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue May 14 2002 - 08:48:26 PDT