On 11/14/2017 07:11 PM, Tristan Cacqueray wrote:
> Contacting <email address hidden> with as much detail as can sounds like a
> good things to do, see https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/admin-
> guide/security-bugs.html .
>
> IIUC, the load happen when an instance simply tries to spoof many new
> mac address? If so, that doesn't seems like something we need to keep
> under embargo and it could probably be easier to fix this issue in
> public.
>
MAC spoofing is obvious and easy, but maybe so obvious that it's gone out of style to try it. I have to assume so since I don't think anybody has
bothered to fix it.
Give me a chance to duplicate with net-next and contact kernel.org? They will probably want to make it public ASAP since there's an easy mitigation
and there's also prior discussion from 2013 https://www.keypressure.com/blog/linux-bridge-port-security/ , but I don't have a feel for these things.
On 11/14/2017 07:11 PM, Tristan Cacqueray wrote: /www.kernel. org/doc/ html/latest/ admin- bugs.html .
> Contacting <email address hidden> with as much detail as can sounds like a
> good things to do, see https:/
> guide/security-
>
> IIUC, the load happen when an instance simply tries to spoof many new
> mac address? If so, that doesn't seems like something we need to keep
> under embargo and it could probably be easier to fix this issue in
> public.
>
MAC spoofing is obvious and easy, but maybe so obvious that it's gone out of style to try it. I have to assume so since I don't think anybody has
bothered to fix it.
Give me a chance to duplicate with net-next and contact kernel.org? They will probably want to make it public ASAP since there's an easy mitigation /www.keypressur e.com/blog/ linux-bridge- port-security/ , but I don't have a feel for these things.
and there's also prior discussion from 2013 https:/
--Sarah