[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: Regarding summer of code 2008(writing device drivers)
>>> I don't see why there's any more chance of [data injection] with
>>> this scheme than with normal TCP.
>> Sleeper injections, perhaps?
> I still don't see the attack. The packet can only get into the cache
> if it's in-window for some stream, plus it passes the TCP checksum.
Oh, I misunderstood. I thought this was done at the IP layer, not the
> (Aside: we never want to cache UDP packets without checksum. [...])
If you're doing caching at the TCP layer, you don't have to worry about
> [...], especially when you take the probability of reuse into
> account. (Hmm -- for NFS, it might be a very promising idea...)
Doesn't most NFS use UDP, and thus not get cached? I certainly know
that I've seen NFS-over-TCP used seldom-to-never.
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse%rodents.montreal.qc.ca@localhost
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
Main Index |
Thread Index |