[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: TCP: tcp_parse_options: Illegal window scaling value 15 > 14 received



Hi Michael,

> On Sep 7, 2022, at 5:49 AM, Michael Grant <mgrant@grant.org> wrote:
> 
> I'm seeing this error over and over in /var/log/messages:
> 
> Sep  6 05:02:42 hostname kernel: [408794.655182] TCP: tcp_parse_options: Illegal window scaling value 15 > 14 received
> Sep  6 05:02:43 hostname kernel: [408794.830639] TCP: tcp_parse_options: Illegal window scaling value 15 > 14 received
> Sep  6 05:02:43 hostname kernel: [408794.960811] TCP: tcp_parse_options: Illegal window scaling value 15 > 14 received
> Sep  6 05:02:43 hostname kernel: [408795.180464] TCP: tcp_parse_options: Illegal window scaling value 15 > 14 received
> 
> I've not been able to find much about these messages by searching,
> nothing useful is coming up.  Is anyone else seeing something like
> this?

This is consistent with RFC 7323, Section 2.3 [1], which states:

   "If a
   Window Scale option is received with a shift.cnt value larger than
   14, the TCP SHOULD log the error but MUST use 14 instead of the
   specified value."

>  Is this some sort of attack?

I am not sure.  But the purpose of keeping the window scale below 15 is to "insure that new data is never mistakenly considered old and vice versa" [1].  In any case, it seems to me that 1) your kernel appears to be handling it properly (hence the logs) and 2) even if it weren't, it doesn't *seem* like a problem for the server as much as for the entity that wanted the data.  Just my $0.02.

Interestingly, I happen to have some software using different window scale values in its interactions with Internet servers.  I just yesterday discovered a bug which was occasionally allowing 15 to be used as a window scale value, and I have corrected that. I don't know if my software was responsible for the log messages that Michael observed, but I have reached out off-list to investigate.

Casey

[1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7323.html

Reply to: