Does this separate thread connection need another as_req/rep pair?
checker at d6.com
Fri May 8 14:12:44 EDT 2015
Yeah, my packet types are different for each direction. Out of curiosity,
as discussed years ago, I also use "directional addressing" where I set a
fake ip address for the local and remote that are the opposites for the two
sides, so that would prevent reflections too, right?
On May 8, 2015 8:41 AM, "Greg Hudson" <ghudson at mit.edu> wrote:
> On 05/08/2015 04:57 AM, Chris Hecker wrote:
> > Hmm, thinking about this a bit more: if I turn off DO_SEQUENCE so I can
> > share the auth_context, is there a way to dupe it so it can be used in
> > both threads simultaneously? There shouldn't be any more mutable
> > dependent state in there if there's no seq being used, right?
> You might be able to make a new context and use
> krb5_auth_con_getsendsubkey(), krb5_auth_con_recvsubkey(),
> krb5_auth_con_setsendsubkey(), and krb5_auth_con_setrecvsubkey() to copy
> the keys. I don't think rd_priv and mk_priv use anything else in this
> (Don't use the _k variants; they use reference counts rather than
> copying, and krb5_keys are mutable and not internally locked..)
> Also, in addition to all of the attacks I mentioned for this auth
> context configuration, reflection attacks are possible, where a message
> from A to B is reflected back to A masquerading as a message from B.
> You'll need to make sure to take that into account in your protocol,
> perhaps just by making client-to-server messages look different from
> server-to-client messages.
More information about the Kerberos