Re: ICMP checksum error through NAT ?

This is a discussion on Re: ICMP checksum error through NAT ? within the IPFilter forums, part of the System Security and Security Related category; On Aug 26, 2007, at 21:16, Phil Dibowitz wrote: > I don't see why the vlan's wouldn'...


Go Back   Usenet Forums > System Security and Security Related > IPFilter

FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 08-27-2007
Chris Ross
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: ICMP checksum error through NAT ?


On Aug 26, 2007, at 21:16, Phil Dibowitz wrote:
> I don't see why the vlan's wouldn't allow it, it's still the same
> hardware.
> And it's not a "I haven't turned it on" its more of a "have I
> turned it off"
> for most hardware. Try adding:
>
> set ip:dohwcksum=0
>
> to /etc/system and reboot. If you still have the problem, you can
> definitively say it's not hardware checksumming.


That would work if I were running Solaris, perhaps. :-) I mentioned
too briefly in my first message that I was running NetBSD 4.0 beta.

The output of ifconfig wm0 shows that the hardware has the
capability,
but that it's not being used:

# ifconfig wm0
wm0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500

capabilities=2bf00<IP4CSUM_Rx,IP4CSUM_Tx,TCP4CSUM_ Rx,TCP4CSUM_Tx,UDP4CSU
M_Rx,UDP4CSUM_Tx,TCP6CSUM_Tx,UDP6CSUM_Tx>
enabled=0


If it were being used, the enabled line would indicate the
capabilities
that were in use.

And, I'd like to point out, that tcpdump was complaining about the
ICMP checksum, not the UDP or IP checksums:

18:45:57.844936 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 127, id 12807, offset 0, flags
[none], length: 124) c-69-244-mm-nn.hsd1.md.comcast.net >
vpnsvr2a.xxx.com: icmp 104: c-69-244-mm-nn.hsd1.md.comcast.net udp
port 38037 unreachable (wrong icmp cksum 738f (->52c2)!) for IP (tos
0x20, ttl 105, id 52030, offset 0, flags [none], length: 96)
vpnsvr2a.xxx.com.4500 > c-69-244-mm-nn.hsd1.md.comcast.net.38037: [no
cksum] UDP, length: 68

Thanks. Any other thoughts? It might be hard to create this. I
guess
if you made a bidirectional UDP flow starting in the NAT, then stopped
the listener inside, and the other was trying to send UDP in through the
NAT, this could be manufactured. Not trivial, but possible....

- Chris

Reply With Quote
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.0.0