IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: resistance to swamping attacks.

Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@apollo.hp.com> Fri, 20 September 1996 19:00 UTC

Received: from relay.hq.tis.com by neptune.TIS.COM id aa28081; 20 Sep 96 15:00 EDT
Received: by relay.hq.tis.com; id PAA16697; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 15:03:54 -0400
Received: from sol.hq.tis.com(10.33.1.100) by relay.tis.com via smap (V3.1.1) id xma016691; Fri, 20 Sep 96 15:03:29 -0400
Received: from relay.hq.tis.com by tis.com (4.1/SUN-5.64) id AA27568; Fri, 20 Sep 96 15:02:38 EDT
Received: by relay.hq.tis.com; id PAA16688; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 15:03:24 -0400
Received: from capone.ch.apollo.hp.com(15.254.24.3) by relay.tis.com via smap (V3.1.1) id xma016684; Fri, 20 Sep 96 15:03:05 -0400
Received: from thunk.orchard.medford.ma.us (thunk.ch.apollo.hp.com) by capone.ch.apollo.hp.com id <AA177666325@capone.ch.apollo.hp.com>; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 15:05:25 -0400
Received: from thunk (sommerfeld@localhost) by thunk.orchard.medford.ma.us (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA00495; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 15:05:23 -0400
Message-Id: <199609201905.PAA00495@thunk.orchard.medford.ma.us>
X-Authentication-Warning: thunk.orchard.medford.ma.us: sommerfeld owned process doing -bs
To: Matt Crawford <crawdad@fnal.gov>
Cc: ipsec@TIS.COM
Subject: Re: resistance to swamping attacks.
In-Reply-To: crawdad's message of Fri, 20 Sep 1996 10:49:53 -0500. <199609201549.KAA26580@munin.fnal.gov>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 15:05:22 -0400
From: Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@apollo.hp.com>
Sender: ipsec-approval@neptune.tis.com
Precedence: bulk

> I think your conditions are automatically satisfied for any protocol,
> if you assume sufficient processing speed in the host.  

John (and I) said "system", not "protocol".

> If you don't make that assumtion, that you have to specify the
> assumed processing speed in some way, in order to get a bound on the
> computation you will allow a candidate protocol to require.  And we
> all know what happens to assumptions about processing power.

Right, but as compute power on the system under attack goes up, it
becomes *easier*, not harder, to keep doing productive work in the
face of a swamping attack.

If we can solve the problem for currently available commodity systems,
we're probably on the right track.

						- Bill

v2.37.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status