[PATCH] H.245 ALG dropping packets

, but from my (limited) understanding of ALGs this isn't a good enough reason. Does it ever make sense to drop packets in an ALG? Blair Steven (1): Accept packets that the H.245 ALG can't process net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_h323_main.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3

[PATCH] Accept packets that the H.245 ALG can't process

forwarding engine. Signed-off-by: Blair Steven --- net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_h323_main.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_h323_main.c b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_h323_main.c index 3bcdc71..6161375 100644 --- a/net/netfilter

Re: esp: Fix ESN generation under UDP encapsulation

transport header (which isn't >> quite right because UDP still is the transport protocol), we can >> just save the offset locally. Something like this: >> >> ---8<--- >> Blair Steven noticed that ESN in conjunction with UDP encapsulation >> is broken because w

Re: [PATCH] IPsec NAT-T issue

/ dest ports + SPI. -Blair On 06/13/2016 10:20 PM, Steffen Klassert wrote: > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:48:13AM +1200, Blair Steven wrote: >> During testing we have discovered an issue with IPsec NAT-T where the SPI >> is over writing the source and dest ports of the UDP header. >

[PATCH] esp: correct offset for ESN when using NAT-T

The offset for calculating ESN was not taking into account the new UDP header created for NAT-T. --- net/ipv4/esp4.c | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) diff --git a/net/ipv4/esp4.c b/net/ipv4/esp4.c index 4779374..c84d1fc 100644 --- a/net/ipv4/esp4.c +++ b/net/ipv4/esp4.c @@ -223,6 +223,8 @@

[PATCH] IPsec NAT-T issue

27;s the right thing to be doing here, or if it should be done elsewhere. Thanks very much Blair Steven (1): esp: correct offset for ESN when using NAT-T net/ipv4/esp4.c | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) -- 2.8.3