nanog mailing list archives
RE: IPv4 flag day
From: Gary Sparkes via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2026 22:05:00 +0000
ICMP Time Exceeded, not unreachable. In this case we’re abusing that ICMP Time Exceeded packet to communicate to the host behind the NAT the client-side IP. Then all the magic can light up between the two endpoints. From: Dorn Hetzel <dorn () hetzel org> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2026 5:46 PM To: North American Network Operators Group <nanog () lists nanog org> Cc: Gary Sparkes <gary () kisaracorporation com>; Arie Vayner <ariev () vayner net> Subject: Re: IPv4 flag day Do I misunderstand, or does it only allow inbound traffic from random hosts *as long as it meets the format of ICMP unreachable* and has the correct contents? On Thu, Jun 18, 2026 at 3:34 PM Arie Vayner via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org<mailto:nanog () lists nanog org>> wrote: Unless I'm missing something, the pwnat mechanism will actually work through any stateful packet inspection (be it NAT or just a firewall) that allows Traceroute to work. They basically take advantage of ICMP unreachable messages to sneak through the stateful inspection mechanism... So a "malicious" host on your FW inside can basically punch through by creating this "ICMP" hole... Interesting technique for sure. On Thu, Jun 18, 2026, 11:44 AM Gary Sparkes via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org<mailto:nanog () lists nanog org>> wrote:
Simply, the inbound firewall rules prevent it from working. There's no NAT to bypass the firewall to allow the ingress. You'd instead have to open the ingress port on the firewall to allow the traffic. (It does work, as I noted, I've used it for a legitimate customer before) In the non-NAT scenario, the port would have to be allowed through the firewall, or the device behind the NAT would have to connect to *me* at a point or infrastructure that I control. Remember, I am effectively, an unknown address endpoint, *initiating* the connection to the NAT'd device that has no prior knowledge of my address. -----Original Message----- From: William Herrin <bill () herrin us<mailto:bill () herrin us>> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2026 2:37 PM To: Gary Sparkes <gary () kisaracorporation com<mailto:gary () kisaracorporation com>> Cc: North American Network Operators Group <nanog () lists nanog org<mailto:nanog () lists nanog org>> Subject: Re: IPv4 flag day On Thu, Jun 18, 2026 at 11:18 AM Gary Sparkes <gary () kisaracorporation com<mailto:gary () kisaracorporation com>> wrote:I never said the Pi wouldn't send outbound packets. It's just sending ICMP echo packets to a destination that'll neverrespond and isn't owned or used by the attacker. Any arbitrary destination will work if you know what that is (and, since it's your payload, you configure that). In the "ready to connect" state, all you're seeing on your side is ICMP echos to X.X.X.X failing. I can then connect to your 1.2.3.4 from Y.Y.Y.Y over port XXXX.Allowing me to establish ingress from any arbitrary Y.Y.Y.Y without any knowledge or control of X.X.X.X So there never is, until I go to establish the connection FROM OUTSIDE THE NAT, a state between Y.Y.Y.Y and 1.2.3.4 Effectively, this turns into me establishing a connection from anyarbitrary outside address, where I only need to know your external NAT IP, and no state had ever existed between us before. Hi Gary, That's pretty convoluted but let's say for the sake of the argument that it works. What stops it from working with the non-NAT firewall? The claim you made against 1:many NAT was, "I can't imagine any case in where the ability to arbitrarily punch through your firewall (as an attacker) once I have any kind of foothold is a good feature." To sustain that claim as an argument against NAT (as opposed to an argument against outbound allow by default), you have to demonstrate an attack where you can punch through a 1:many NAT firewall but can't punch through a comparably configured non-NAT firewall. Regards, Bill Herrin -- For hire. https://bill.herrin.us/resume/ _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/TYNHRRA4OHL5CRXN2C2FZ7KMC4EWJIUS/
_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/LYNHL7WXW7NRKI7TSJBDGBRPVJFGSSYU/ _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/W6NNUMTI23CJGBQ7LSSCFE5BSI34NUDZ/
Current thread:
- RE: IPv4 flag day, (continued)
- RE: IPv4 flag day Gary Sparkes via NANOG (Jun 18)
- Re: IPv4 flag day William Herrin via NANOG (Jun 18)
- RE: IPv4 flag day Gary Sparkes via NANOG (Jun 18)
- Re: IPv4 flag day William Herrin via NANOG (Jun 18)
- RE: IPv4 flag day Gary Sparkes via NANOG (Jun 18)
- Re: IPv4 flag day William Herrin via NANOG (Jun 18)
- RE: IPv4 flag day Gary Sparkes via NANOG (Jun 18)
- Re: IPv4 flag day Arie Vayner via NANOG (Jun 18)
- RE: IPv4 flag day Gary Sparkes via NANOG (Jun 18)
- Re: IPv4 flag day Dorn Hetzel via NANOG (Jun 18)
- RE: IPv4 flag day Gary Sparkes via NANOG (Jun 18)
- Re: IPv4 flag day Dorn Hetzel via NANOG (Jun 18)
- RE: IPv4 flag day Gary Sparkes via NANOG (Jun 18)
- Re: IPv4 flag day William Herrin via NANOG (Jun 18)
- RE: IPv4 flag day Gary Sparkes via NANOG (Jun 18)
- Re: IPv4 flag day Marco Moock via NANOG (Jun 19)
- RE: IPv4 flag day Gary Sparkes via NANOG (Jun 19)
- Re: IPv4 flag day sronan--- via NANOG (Jun 18)
- Re: IPv4 flag day William Herrin via NANOG (Jun 18)
- Re: IPv4 flag day Marco Moock via NANOG (Jun 18)
- Re: IPv4 flag day Marco Moock via NANOG (Jun 18)
