Subject: llmnr issue 39 Name conflict detection algorithm

From: Erik Guttman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 11:12:02 +0200 (CEST)

[ post by non-subscriber.  with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to miss
  and therefore delete posts by non-subscribers.  if you wish to regularly
  post from an address that is not subscribed to this mailing list, send a
  message to <listname>[email-masked] and ask to have the alternate
  address added to the list of addresses from which submissions are
  automatically accepted. ]

Bernard,

I agree that multicasting the name with the conflict would be easier
to implement (and specify correctly).

If this multicast occurs to a link local multicast group destination, it
would be hard for an attacker send it to another link.  This mitigates
the security risk of caching. 

I assume the host (llmnr responder) receiving these multicast
unsolicited replies can distinguish the difference between a message
sent to multicast and unicast destinations.  Either a separate listener
(socket, or whatever) should be used to listen for unicast requests, to
differentiate them from multicast requests - or the 'destination
address' of the received datagram should be examined. 

Erik

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>