| < Previous by Date | Date Index | Next by Date > |
| < Previous in Thread | Thread Index | Next in Thread > |
|
The way is works right now, is that if there are any route
headers present (after we have removed ourselves from Top route, if present) –
we forward the ACK on to this destination, without checking if RequestUri or
from are ours. If I implement what you are suggesting we change this
behaviour. Just to be clear: we only forward ACKS if we are in top
route or the requesturi or from are ours? Scott From: Robert Sparks
[mailto:rjsparks@xxxxxxxxxxx] Add that Route header pointed to this proxy and I think
you're ok. RjS On Feb 1, 2007, at 10:45 AM, Scott Godin wrote:
Thanks Robert. Actually we are record routing – but
by the time the code checks if there is a Route header (in
RequestContext)– we have already called RemoveTopRouteIfSelf. Maybe
I just need to fix it, so that it allows the ACK forwarding as long as there
was a Route header, when we received the ACK. Sound good? Scott From: Robert
Sparks [mailto:rjsparks@xxxxxxxxxxx] This is a security question -
it is not unlike forwarding "stray" responses. The risk protected against is
primarily avoiding exhaustion of local resources (particularly TCP connections)
with the extra spice of avoiding being used to anonymize traffic (example,
circumvent firewall protection by appearing to come from a different source
address) used in a DoS attack against someone else. In your scenario, it appears
you aren't record-routing, but the ACK is still showing up at repro? Do you
have a need to not record-route? If you want to enable building
with different policies about such things, I think I'd rather have it involve a
code change that selects the policy rather than a command-line option. RjS On Feb 1, 2007, at 9:23 AM,
Scott Godin wrote:
Hi Byron, You made the following comment
RequestContext: //
!bwc! Someone is using us to relay an ACK, but host in //
>From isn't ours, host in request-uri isn't ours, and no // Route headers. Refusing to
do so. I’m curious why we have
this code in repro – is this supposed to protect us from some sort of
attack, or some security issues? We have a case where we are
modifying the From headers of requests sent through repro, in order to get the
display on end UA’s the way we want it. This chunk of code ends up
dropping our ACKS if the domain in the from is not “owned” by repro.
Note: it is common for the request uri to not match our domain, when
routing using a mid-dialog request by using the contact header – since it
is quite common to contain the ip address of the UA not the registered AOR. I’m thinking of
providing a command line option – something like “forward all
ACKs”, in order to disable this checking. Any concerns? Scott _______________________________________________ resiprocate-devel mailing list
|