From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751802AbaHTKV0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Aug 2014 06:21:26 -0400 Received: from h1446028.stratoserver.net ([85.214.92.142]:35383 "EHLO mail.ahsoftware.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750819AbaHTKVZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Aug 2014 06:21:25 -0400 Message-ID: <53F4765E.2040105@ahsoftware.de> Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 12:20:14 +0200 From: Alexander Holler User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hagen Paul Pfeifer CC: Eric Dumazet , Christian Grothoff , Jacob Appelbaum , Andi Kleen , Stephen Hemminger , David Miller , netdev , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, knock@gnunet.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] TCP: add option for silent port knocking with integrity protection References: <52A75EF8.3010308@in.tum.de> <20131211.150137.368953964178408437.davem@davemloft.net> <52A8C8B4.4060109@in.tum.de> <20131211122637.75b09074@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> <87bo0nulkt.fsf@tassilo.jf.intel.com> <52A8ECF5.3070604@in.tum.de> <20131212012317.GL21717@two.firstfloor.org> <52A98DBF.4090702@appelbaum.net> <52A9A17F.6050505@in.tum.de> <1386858864.19078.60.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> <53F3A739.4070203@ahsoftware.de> <53F4654C.10101@ahsoftware.de> <53F46EA3.60408@ahsoftware.de> In-Reply-To: <53F46EA3.60408@ahsoftware.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Am 20.08.2014 11:47, schrieb Alexander Holler: > Am 20.08.2014 11:28, schrieb Hagen Paul Pfeifer: >> On 20 August 2014 11:07, Alexander Holler wrote: >> >>> For sure it could be better, but I'm already happy with the current >>> imperfect solution which I can use now and not some perfect solution >>> which >>> might be available in some years. >> >> Alexander, to make it clear: we cannot include mechanisms which >> probably open other (security) issues. This is not how things work >> out. TCP had so many issues in the past - regarding security, >> implementation f*ups, etc. pp. It is utterly important that there is >> no problem with an extension. Please join the discussion ob tcpm if >> you will drive things forward. That's all what I can say - sorry! > > Maybe I first should send a million syn-packets to a box where I've > enabled that feature. ;) > > Anyway, I still think there should be some room for experimental > features in the kernel. It makes them more visible to possible > contributors and helps to drive further development. > > Not necessarily in my case (as most people, I can't and don't want to > participate in all parties), but ... And as I've just read the archives of tcpm, I don't think it would help. Jacob Appelbaum already expressed everything I like to use this feature for, so most of the time I just had to send a +1 to Jacobs comments, which would be somewhat annoying. ;) Regards, Alexander Holler