Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 23 May 1996 09:40:06 -0700
From:      Paul Traina <pst@shockwave.com>
To:        Warner Losh <imp@village.org>
Cc:        Garrett Wollman <wollman@lcs.mit.edu>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.tfs.com>, current@FreeBSD.ORG, blh@nol.net
Subject:   Re: freebsd + synfloods + ip spoofing 
Message-ID:  <199605231640.JAA11518@precipice.shockwave.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 23 May 1996 10:21:07 MDT." <199605231621.KAA10068@rover.village.org> 

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Well, the MD5 hash would make it much less predictable, even it it was
stable, so that could certainly be the reason.

Say we do:	ulong foo[] = MD5(hostname+secret+random);
		tcp_iss += 0x3ffff & (foo[0] ^ foo[1] ^ foo[2] ^ foo[3]);

that should give us the properties we want.  The bottom bits get highly
jittered and should (hah) be relatively unpredictable (who knows how the
xor hurts MD5).

  From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org>
  Subject: Re: freebsd + synfloods + ip spoofing 
  : That offers no improvement over just randomization.
  
  As long as the randomization isn't predictible, yes.  I'm not sure why
  they suggest the MD-5 hash.
  
  I wrote:
  :   Per attempt is easy to ramdomize w/o violating 793 since you still
  :   have 2^31 bits of randomness that you can use (since the original
           31 bits
  
  Paul again:
  : However, the random number generator that we're using could be badly broken
>>,
  : which is why I want to get BHL's tools and verify his tests.
  
  If it is a pseudo random number sequence generater, then it buys you
  nothing over += 30 because it is predictible (even if it is uniform
  and looks random).  I've not tkaen a look at the code to know for sure
  if the randomness is good enough or not.  Likely you need to do a
  /dev/random sort of thing that will be both uniform and unpredictable.
  
  Warner
  
  P.S.  /dev/random here is a entropy gatherer in the kernel for the
  purpose of generating cryptographically strong random numbers.
  -stable doesn't seem to have this, not sure about -current.  Linux
  does which is where I'm getting the nomenclature from.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199605231640.JAA11518>