IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-jabley-ipv6-rh0-is-evil-00.txt

David Malone <dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie> Mon, 14 May 2007 14:38 UTC

Return-path: <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HnbhK-0000wY-2b; Mon, 14 May 2007 10:38:50 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HnbhH-0000q8-Pi for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 14 May 2007 10:38:48 -0400
Received: from salmon.maths.tcd.ie ([2001:770:10:300::86e2:510b]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HnbhG-0001GC-8U for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 14 May 2007 10:38:47 -0400
Received: from walton.maths.tcd.ie ([134.226.81.10] helo=walton.maths.tcd.ie) by salmon.maths.tcd.ie with SMTP id <aa33106@salmon>; 14 May 2007 15:38:45 +0100 (BST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=maths.tcd.ie) by walton.maths.tcd.ie with SMTP id <aa59595@walton>; 14 May 2007 15:38:44 +0100 (BST)
To: Guillaume Valadon / ギョー ム バラドン <guedou@hongo.wide.ad.jp>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 14 May 2007 16:20:54 +0200." <9518FB37-DBCC-45C9-9ABF-1D1C5CC603AD@hongo.wide.ad.jp>
X-Request-Do:
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 15:38:44 +0100
From: David Malone <dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie>
Message-ID: <200705141538.aa59595@walton.maths.tcd.ie>
X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--)
X-Scan-Signature: cf4fa59384e76e63313391b70cd0dd25
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-jabley-ipv6-rh0-is-evil-00.txt
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IP Version 6 Working Group \(ipv6\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org

> > If you've access to someone's machine and can twiddle parameters
> > of their IP stack, then RH0 isn't a big deal.

> I did not understand your point here.
> Are you trying to justify that RH0 are harmless regarding other kind
> of attacks ?

I think Joe was suggesting that if RH0 was useful to attackers, and
we suggested a knob to allow it to be turned on/off, then malware
would just turn it back on again. I was just pointing out that there
already are things that malware can do which produce nastier attacks
than RH0 permits.

(I'm not quite sure if I understood your question correctly.)

	David.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email