Security Basics mailing list archives
Re: TCP vs UDP II
From: Alevizos Dimos <dimos () alevizos gr>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 23:09:29 +0200
I think it depends... I know for sure that ettercap (on linux) can hijack a tcp connection and inject whatever data the intruder wants (it's child's play for instance to hijack a telnet to a router and send back to the operator fake answers from the router)... But in order to do that it has to be on the same lan (it can work even in switched lans) with one of the two machines... If you're talking about some guy who's miles away to be able to hijack a telnet connection from you to some other machine... i don't know... :-)
Pablo Gietz wrote:
Dear list: It's possible that a intruder could take active part of a TCP connection after this was established? In UPD I know this is true because is a connectionless protocol. But I have doubts about TCP. Thanks Pablo A. C. Gietz Jefe de Seguridad Informática Nuevo Banco de Entre Ríos S.A. Te.: 0343 - 4201351
Current thread:
- TCP vs UDP II Pablo Gietz (Nov 13)
- Re: TCP vs UDP II Rooster (Nov 14)
- Re: TCP vs UDP II Steve Bremer (Nov 14)
- Contractors on Company Networks - Network segregation William Kupersanin (Nov 17)
- RE: Contractors on Company Networks - Network segregation Bill Lavalette (Nov 18)
- Contractors on Company Networks - Network segregation William Kupersanin (Nov 17)
- Re: TCP vs UDP II Alevizos Dimos (Nov 15)
- Re: TCP vs UDP II Donnie Tognazzini (Nov 18)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: TCP vs UDP II Schouten, Diederik (Diederik) (Nov 14)
- RE: TCP vs UDP II Garbrecht, Frederick (Nov 14)
- RE: TCP vs UDP II charles lindsay (Nov 15)