[19737] in bugtraq
Re: TCP Timestamping and Remotely gathering uptime information
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bert hubert)
Tue Mar 20 21:23:41 2001
Mail-Followup-To: BUGTRAQ@SECURITYFOCUS.COM
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Message-ID: <20010319194822.A17350@home.ds9a.nl>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 19:48:23 +0100
Reply-To: bert hubert <ahu@DS9A.NL>
From: bert hubert <ahu@DS9A.NL>
To: BUGTRAQ@SECURITYFOCUS.COM
In-Reply-To: <20010317003122.A15097@benji.the-roost>; from
swhite@OX.COMPSOC.NET on Sat, Mar 17, 2001 at 12:31:22AM +0000
On Sat, Mar 17, 2001 at 12:31:22AM +0000, Stephen White wrote:
> On Wed, Mar, 2001, Bret wrote:
> > either by creating a new 'timestamp clock' for
> > each TCP session (that uses timestamps)
>
> You can't do this .. it breaks the use of such timestamps for things
> like TCP Sequence number wrap-around protection on fast networks
> (gigabit).
Yes you can. PAWS is not needed to differentiate *different* sessions,
unless you also cycle through all your local ports in a few seconds. Which
is exceedingly unlikely.
Regards,
bert hubert
--
http://www.PowerDNS.com Versatile DNS Services
Trilab The Technology People
'SYN! .. SYN|ACK! .. ACK!' - the mating call of the internet
