• just_another_person@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 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.

    • ramble81@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 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.

      • Technus@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 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.