Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix IKEv2 critical bit set #4647

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Feb 3, 2025
Merged

Fix IKEv2 critical bit set #4647

merged 2 commits into from
Feb 3, 2025

Conversation

dmaciejak
Copy link
Contributor

According to the RFC, "Critical (1 bit) - MUST be set to zero if the sender wants the recipient to skip this payload if it does not understand the payload type code in the Next Payload field of the previous payload. MUST be set to one if the sender wants the recipient to reject this entire message". The fields are laid out in big endian order, it means to set the bit to critical we have to set the MSB to 1.

Critical bit is set on the MSB
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 27, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 78.72%. Comparing base (3cbb62e) to head (9cb9d02).

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #4647      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   81.64%   78.72%   -2.92%     
==========================================
  Files         359      334      -25     
  Lines       86237    81038    -5199     
==========================================
- Hits        70405    63801    -6604     
- Misses      15832    17237    +1405     
Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
scapy/contrib/ikev2.py 95.28% <ø> (-0.03%) ⬇️

... and 286 files with indirect coverage changes

gpotter2
gpotter2 previously approved these changes Feb 3, 2025
Copy link
Member

@gpotter2 gpotter2 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the PR. Tested this and it seems correct

Copy link
Member

@gpotter2 gpotter2 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM. Added a unit test

@gpotter2 gpotter2 merged commit e16a18e into secdev:master Feb 3, 2025
22 of 23 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants