• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    206 months ago

    Pretty rough and clever. Probably used in espionage for some time now. Sounds like static addresses and network namespaces solves for most of the problem though.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      8
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Yeah. Easy to check and get around this. Check your routes before transmitting data, also set up your VPN to push /2s if this relies on /1s, nuke extra routes, etc.

      Novel idea though that most people wouldn’t think to look for, but at the end of the day any system will follow its routing table.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        86 months ago

        also set up your VPN to push /2s if this relies on /1s,

        I don’t think this is a smart way to mitigate this because it could easily result in an arms race. Push /2s, the attacker will switch to /3s; push /4s, the attacker will switch to /5s, etc. Every +1 is going to require doubling the number of routing table entries.

        That can’t continue forever, obviously, but it’s going to result in a negative experience for the user if the VPN client has to push hundreds or thousands of routes to mitigate this attack.