Re: [Idr] Last Call: <draft-ietf-idr-shutdown-08.txt> (BGP Administrative Shutdown Communication) to Proposed Standard

Hi Robert,

If you (and others) think that "visual attack" is a better phrasing, I'd be
happy to change "visual spoofing" to "visual attacks" in the security
section.

Kind regards,

Job

On Mon, 8 May 2017 at 22:39, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:

>
> Then this is not "visual spoofing"  ... you are just protecting from forms
> of "visual attacks"
>
> Best,
> R.
>
> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 10:36 PM, Job Snijders <job@ntt.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi Robert,
>>
>> The reference is to a different type of visual spoofing. The idea was to
>> limit the string length to prevent spoofing of additional syslog messages
>> or other fake cli output.
>>
>> We already covered the extensibility aspect in the working group.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Job
>>
>> On Mon, 8 May 2017 at 22:28, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Job,
>>>
>>> Assuming that by "visual spoofing" you really mean this:
>>> http://websec.github.io/unicode-security-guide/visual-spoofing/ how
>>> does limiting the length of the field helps to minimize it ?
>>>
>>> It is UTF which is a problem here regardless of the length.
>>>
>>> Ok so we leave 129-255 for further use .. brilliant. Assume someone
>>> comes tomorrow and has a great use case for sending one byte of information
>>> in the cease. So he defines length 129 right ? And even if operator did not
>>> type anything for the "shutdown case" ... first 128 bytes goes empty, then
>>> goes one newly defined octet. Is this really how protocol encoding should
>>> be done in 2017 ? Is concept of TLV so complex ?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> R.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 9:46 PM, Job Snijders <job@ntt.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 8 May 2017 at 21:36, Enke Chen <enkechen@cisco.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I understand this is not a good use of time.  But since it is in the
>>>>> spec, I would like to understand the reasons.  If there are good
>>>>> reasons
>>>>> for doing things differently, then they should be documented in the
>>>>> spec
>>>>> so that people do not question again.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In the security section: "This specification minimizes the effects of
>>>> visual spoofing by limiting the length of the Shutdown Communication."
>>>>
>>>> On 5/8/17 12:13 PM, Jakob Heitz (jheitz) wrote:
>>>>> > It is deliberately kept short to minimize the potential for abuse.
>>>>>
>>>>> 128 is ok, and 129- 255 would be considered abuse?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Those are an error according to the draft.
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>
>>>> Job
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Idr mailing list
>>>> Idr@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>>>>
>>>>
>