Re: Fwd: Security Assessment of the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Sat, 14 February 2009 08:12 UTC

Return-Path: <moore@network-heretics.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C16443A67BD for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Feb 2009 00:12:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 KPXbXG0Yfu67 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Feb 2009 00:12:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from m1.imap-partners.net (m1.imap-partners.net [64.13.152.131]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22B4E3A69AD for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Feb 2009 00:12:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lust.indecency.org (adsl-6-49-97.tys.bellsouth.net [65.6.49.97]) by m1.imap-partners.net (MOS 3.10.3-GA) with ESMTP id BJC00131 (AUTH admin@network-heretics.com) for ietf@ietf.org; Sat, 14 Feb 2009 00:12:43 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <49967CF9.7090105@network-heretics.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 03:12:41 -0500
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Macintosh/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Security Assessment of the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)
References: <4994A4EB.5030607@gmail.com> <0B030ADA-F621-4FDF-9CAF-23A27C16E26B@multicasttech.com> <49961BDB.9030905@network-heretics.com> <49963A14.1090106@bogus.com>
In-Reply-To: <49963A14.1090106@bogus.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: opsec wg mailing list <opsec@ietf.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 08:12:41 -0000

Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> Keith Moore wrote:
>> Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>>> If I am reading this correctly the UK Centre for the Protection of
>>> National Infrastructure
>>> wants the IETF (or some other body) to produce a "companion document to
>>> the IETF specifications that discusses the security aspects and
>>> implications of the protocols, identifies the existing vulnerabilities,
>>> discusses the possible countermeasures, and analyses their respective
>>> effectiveness."
>> It's difficult to imagine that these things could be adequately captured
>> in a static document, for TCP or any other protocol, because new threats
>> and countermeasures continue to be identified decades after the base
>> protocol is well-settled.  Maybe something like an expanded version of
>> the RFC Editor's errata pages would be more appropriate?
> 
> One might imagine an informational document which was routinely
> obsoleted by future iterations. Keeping it tractable is a product of
> necessarily limiting the scope.

I fear that our RFC approval and publication process has become so
onerous that it imposes a significant barrier for dissemination of such
information.

Keith