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

Francis Brosnan Blazquez <francis@aspl.es> Wed, 25 March 2009 10:30 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 A0AB43A6938 for <ietfarch-beep-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 03:30:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Quarantine-ID: <Wr3EMPtWKyK7>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER, Duplicate header field: "Cc"
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.011
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.588, 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 Wr3EMPtWKyK7 for <ietfarch-beep-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 03:30:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hl27.dinaserver.com (hl27.dinaserver.com [82.98.144.26]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B3EC3A67FB for <beep-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 03:30:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hl27.dinaserver.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hl27.dinaserver.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A99807D87C8; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:30:43 +0100 (CET)
X-Original-To: beepwg@beepcore.org
Delivered-To: beepwg-lista@hl27.dinaserver.com
Received: from dolphin.aspl.es (unknown [212.170.101.196]) by hl27.dinaserver.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02E0779476B for <beepwg@beepcore.org>; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:30:32 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dolphin.aspl.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62B596C00A; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:26:44 +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 SaxPOzWYBqMB; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:26:40 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.0.132] (barracuda [10.0.0.4]) by dolphin.aspl.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BDE56C009; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:26:40 +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: <3949923e0903241300n6a290829ub9c33aa1954106ce@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1236942381.17324.180.camel@vulcan.aspl.local> <9471C896-E007-4745-8A49-885D51B6B130@apple.com> <ffc28d54-b4e6-4eaa-ba21-2d6d9f94a2b8@v38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> <1237382051.5260.273.camel@vulcan.aspl.local> <E51D5B15BFDEFD448F90BDD17D41CFF1058BCB58@AHQEX1.andrew.com> <1237916132.27593.169.camel@vulcan.aspl.local> <3949923e0903241300n6a290829ub9c33aa1954106ce@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: Advanced Software Production Line, S.L.
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:30:22 +0100
Message-Id: <1237977022.20276.51.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 <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: A99807D87C8.58599
X-DinaScanner-From: beepwg-bounces@beepcore.org

Hi Martin,

> Optional reply might be better solved by creating a new message type,
> as David suggested.  That way there is no need to have conditional
> logic to handle the message.  

Though a NFY message (one-way notification) would be really interesting,
it will not solve the general request/response pattern without requiring
the application layer to place some MIME message-id to correlate such
interaction.

I have no problem with this though this suppose an approach change where
it is better accepted using MIME as part of the solution.

After giving a try to the problem and perceiving what people say, if
this is the preferred direction (having a new one-way notification frame
type), which is fine for me, I think proper consequences must be taken
on async channels. They won't be required with this new situation.

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