Re: [beepwg] Re: A couple of features to limit BEEP no reply attack

Francis Brosnan Blazquez <francis@aspl.es> Wed, 18 March 2009 13:14 UTC

Return-Path: <beepwg-bounces@beepcore.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-beep-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-beep-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF1CC3A6B13 for <ietfarch-beep-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 06:14:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Quarantine-ID: <2nI4rsG+ICM5>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER, Duplicate header field: "Cc"
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.717
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.717 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.882, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2nI4rsG+ICM5 for <ietfarch-beep-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 06:14:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hl27.dinaserver.com (hl27.dinaserver.com [82.98.144.26]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A56F3A6AFF for <beep-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 06:14:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hl27.dinaserver.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hl27.dinaserver.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30F947BB198; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 14:14:41 +0100 (CET)
X-Original-To: beepwg@beepcore.org
Delivered-To: beepwg-lista@hl27.dinaserver.com
Received: from dolphin.aspl.es (unknown [212.170.183.66]) by hl27.dinaserver.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AA797BAEC1 for <beepwg@beepcore.org>; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 14:14:21 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dolphin.aspl.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EA5A740F8; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 14:09:07 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at dolphin.aspl.es
Received: from dolphin.aspl.es ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (dolphin.aspl.es [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 63Z0kEe2IrI9; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 14:09:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.0.132] (barracuda [10.0.0.4]) by dolphin.aspl.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AFD074054; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 14:09:02 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: [beepwg] Re: A couple of features to limit BEEP no reply attack
From: Francis Brosnan Blazquez <francis@aspl.es>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ffc28d54-b4e6-4eaa-ba21-2d6d9f94a2b8@v38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
References: <1236942381.17324.180.camel@vulcan.aspl.local> <9471C896-E007-4745-8A49-885D51B6B130@apple.com> <ffc28d54-b4e6-4eaa-ba21-2d6d9f94a2b8@v38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: Advanced Software Production Line, S.L.
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 14:14:11 +0100
Message-Id: <1237382051.5260.273.camel@vulcan.aspl.local>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-DinaScanner: Libre de Virus, Este E-Mail no ha sido analizado.
X-DinaScanner-SpamCheck: no es spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, puntaje=-2.499, requerido 6, BAYES_00 -2.60, RDNS_NONE 0.10),
cc: Vortex <vortex@lists.aspl.es>
cc: beepwg@beepcore.org
X-BeenThere: beepwg@beepcore.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: <beepwg.beepcore.org>
List-Help: <mailto:beepwg-request@beepcore.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:beepwg@beepcore.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://beepcore.org/mailman/listinfo/beepwg>, <mailto:beepwg-request@beepcore.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://beepcore.org/mailman/listinfo/beepwg>, <mailto:beepwg-request@beepcore.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: beepwg-bounces@beepcore.org
Errors-To: beepwg-bounces@beepcore.org
X-DinaScanner-Information: DinaScanner. Filtro anti-Spam y anti-Virus
X-MailScanner-ID: 30F947BB198.CEEFE
X-DinaScanner-From: beepwg-bounces@beepcore.org

Hi Martin,

> I think that David has said almost everything that I was going to.  No
> point me wasting my time reiterating it.

Ok.

> One further note on reply-limit that might be related to David's
> second point: there are no provisions made for round trip time.  The
> serving peer might respond within the specified time, but that time
> might have elapsed by the time at the client before then, or before
> the response arrives.

Though I see your point, I find no easy solution to implement a
round-trip discovery extension, which, again, can be blocked in the same
way.

It is expected that BEEP peers will provide appropriate values for this
reply-limit which includes such round-trip delay.

Cheers!

> Ta,
> Martin
-- 
Francis Brosnan Blazquez <francis@aspl.es>;
Advanced Software Production Line, S.L.