RFC Errata


Errata Search
 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 3 records.

Status: Verified (1)

RFC 6056, "Recommendations for Transport-Protocol Port Randomization", January 2011

Source of RFC: tsvwg (wit)

Errata ID: 2750
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Bjoern A. Zeeb
Date Reported: 2011-03-13
Verifier Name: Wes Eddy
Date Verified: 2011-04-01

Section 3.3 says: 

3.3.1.  Algorithm 1: Simple Port Randomization Algorithm

-           if(check_suitable_port(port))

3.3.2.  Algorithm 2: Another Simple Port Randomization Algorithm

-           if(check_suitable_port(port))

It should say:

3.3.1.  Algorithm 1: Simple Port Randomization Algorithm

+           if(check_suitable_port(next_ephemeral))

3.3.2.  Algorithm 2: Another Simple Port Randomization Algorithm

+           if(check_suitable_port(next_ephemeral))

Notes:

For neither Algorithm 1 or 2 the pseudo code defines "port" as a valid variable.
The variable passed to check_suitable_port() should be "next_ephemeral" in these cases.
It looks like a copy and paste error. The technical meaning is still clear.

Status: Reported (1)

RFC 6056, "Recommendations for Transport-Protocol Port Randomization", January 2011

Source of RFC: tsvwg (wit)

Errata ID: 7873
Status: Reported
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Štěpán Němec
Date Reported: 2024-03-27

Section 3.3.3 says: 

(this "separation of the
ephemeral port space" means that transport-protocol instances with
different remote endpoints will not have different sequences of port
numbers, i.e., will not be part of the same ephemeral port sequence
as in the case of the traditional BSD ephemeral port selection
algorithm)

It should say:

(this "separation of the
ephemeral port space" means that transport-protocol instances with
different remote endpoints will have different sequences of port
numbers, i.e., will not be part of the same ephemeral port sequence
as in the case of the traditional BSD ephemeral port selection
algorithm)

Notes:

Drop the first "not", otherwise the two parts of the sentence (before and after "i.e.") are contradictory and the whole parenthetical doesn't match the context.

Status: Rejected (1)

RFC 6056, "Recommendations for Transport-Protocol Port Randomization", January 2011

Source of RFC: tsvwg (wit)

Errata ID: 3739
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Jean-Yves Migeon
Date Reported: 2013-09-26
Rejected by: Martin Stiemerling
Date Rejected: 2013-09-30

Section Appendix A says: 

   NetBSD 5.0.1 does not obfuscate its ephemeral port numbers.  It
   selects ephemeral port numbers from the range 49152-65535, starting
   from port 65535, and decreasing the port number for each ephemeral
   port number selected [NetBSD].

It should say:

   NetBSD 5.0.1 does not obfuscate its ephemeral port numbers.  It
   selects ephemeral port numbers from the range 49152-65535, starting
   from port 65535, and decreasing the port number for each ephemeral
   port number selected [NetBSD].

   NetBSD 6.0 supports RFC 6056 Algorithms 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 with port
   numbers from the range 49152-65535 as documented in [NetBSD-RFC6056].

Notes:

The project implemented the RFC 6056 algorithms last year to obfuscate the ephemeral port numbers.

[NetBSD-RFC6056] reference is:
The NetBSD Project, "NetBSD Miscellaneous Information Manual -- RFC 6056, Randomization Algorithms", man page - section 7, August 2011.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
The proposed text is not an errata but an addendum which isn't handled via the errata procedures.

Report New Errata



Advanced Search