Bugtraq mailing list archives
Re: Linux inetd..
From: mouse () RODENTS MONTREAL QC CA (der Mouse)
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 12:31:43 -0500
Linux's accept behaviour has been that way (returning before the connection gets to ESTABLISHED) for quite some time. [...]
This is neither here nor there; ever since (on a very old version of Ultrix) I saw the notion, I've thought this should be available as an option.
One of the really annoying things about accept() behaving like this is that the remote socket information can be gone before accept() has a chance to store it in your `sockaddr_in', requiring a packet sniffer of some variety before you know who/what/where is scanning your active ports.
This is not a problem with accept() returning early or not; the same problem exists with a host completing the three-packet handshake and then RSTing the connecting very soon afterwards. The kernel should _never_ throw away the peer address as long as user-land can still potentially do a getpeername() (which is what the second and third arguments to accept() amount to), regardless of what the peer does. In short, I believe this problem (lack of peer info, whether at accept() or getpeername() time) is a kernel bug. der Mouse mouse () rodents montreal qc ca 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
Current thread:
- Q177539: Windows 95 Stops Responding Because of Land Attack, (continued)
- Q177539: Windows 95 Stops Responding Because of Land Attack Aleph One (Dec 04)
- More telnet Daemon Fun Aaron Campbell (Dec 01)
- Re: More telnet Daemon Fun Elliot Lee (Dec 02)
- tcsh/Solaris (Re: More telnet Daemon Fun) Peter Radcliffe (Dec 03)
- scoterm exploit Aleph One (Dec 04)
- Re: Linux inetd.. Alan Cox (Dec 02)
- Re: Linux inetd.. Darren Reed (Dec 02)
- Re: Linux inetd.. Darren Reed (Dec 02)
- Re: Linux inetd.. G P R (Dec 01)
- Sendmail quirks Duck Vader (Dec 02)
- Re: Linux inetd.. der Mouse (Dec 15)