From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.netfilter.org (mail.netfilter.org [217.70.190.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F01B44AA1DD; Thu, 1 Oct 2026 08:44:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.70.190.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790844286; cv=none; b=kXYHTXbhNiawHfu817PNTVGWWtScRQrHWMSAi7Rz5Aces0Ov3jlnAnswJxpFvUAw0Yu3ofPbj0z1OBbcrnh35UM22Dpx1x09C8KBcD7ynW6n+oNr0ZbeWqPnceSiHh0M6YmyfbIY1Z9ylhxseY2HzoX2Vpra7UK2Z+SfbVqwllQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790844286; c=relaxed/simple; bh=cBr/62atPqhADdLLGwzGNHtIkcNfZ47+3KwfShqzONg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=X4IEHRnrd6PU2c02Z1FRacoS9VVUGRfiA9hVskM36pWHoiY/eIPOAX8HXUPbSWGOZoeq8/9quABht3Gv7V1ksefsdGqriFfYqVOUWHwoJ/QIEmMtoZwZGtxkmYExCg8iS27rnH0VXJkHLkn/nABMnw6MELVEIjNttLT9yzbCLZM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=netfilter.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=netfilter.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=netfilter.org header.i=@netfilter.org header.b=mBrw14Fs; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.70.190.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=netfilter.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=netfilter.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=netfilter.org header.i=@netfilter.org header.b="mBrw14Fs" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=netfilter.org; s=2025; t=1790844274; bh=uY/9yCeS7VG/jhYKRUs1M9aE6dvd1iSUp659VfCk9nw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=mBrw14FsnwCPJfAKN66e20TfbA32Rg9xGxlL+ZVOj3H7T49xLp8tDrwcfB4VX4BP3 O0+rt9JaYlCDXvG1mts78JXbrgDKxC8fzu+Tq0vV8f7PCB8qyTue3+zSTUl8VhTzrn RT9OJdgddB/dZUIKLHqWJK8a5AwRLCaHcnLOnHlpPFwywg16VR2j/fdx+oSOZeKoT7 NSQxp/tMlR0z8kfUBTpTxFEtA+4JGvG+h57s+Yo+IfTSPE/rlylv0JVg3O+kVvJNVw 3snUipL3fSSo24Vu+mEsBgCnBYO+4VJPfjy4Bez1mXJRy4ZpwXKXNOOhomwLD4xE1t pOgtyUL3z8DGA== Received: from netfilter.org (mail-agni [217.70.190.124]) by mail.netfilter.org (Postfix) with UTF8SMTPSA id C718F60076; Thu, 1 Oct 2026 10:44:34 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2026 10:44:31 +0200 From: Pablo Neira Ayuso To: Subham Pal Cc: fw@strlen.de, phil@nwl.cc, kaber@trash.net, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, horms@kernel.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net 0/2] netfilter: nf_conntrack_h323: fixes for NAT bypass and ASN.1 decode Message-ID: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Hi, On Wed, Sep 23, 2026 at 04:16:48PM +0530, Subham Pal wrote: > On Wed, Sep 23, 2026 at 2:16 PM Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > I understand these are correctness fixes. > > Do you have a reproducer/PoC? Do you tests for this? > > Hi Pablo, > > Both issues were found while testing a netfilter based linux > firewall with communicating devices from multiple vendors > (Panasonic, PeopleLink, YeaLink and Plycom). We will need a reproducer here without requiring such hardware. > 1. For patch 1 (NAT expectation bypass) > - Environment & Setup > Linux firewall performing NAT between internal and external > network segment with Panasonic, PeopleLink, YeaLink > and Polycom endpoints. > - Observation > Call setup failing due to missing conntrack expectation from > initial Q.931. > > 2. For patch 2 (Failed ASN.1 parsing) > - Environment & Setup > The same setup but this problem happened particularly with > Panasonic endpoint. > - Observation > Panasonic endpoint advertises sequence extension with missing > optional fields during call setup. Due to misaligned check for presence > of field, I was getting H323_ERROR_BOUND error in dmesg.