IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ntp] Splitting the Roughtime draft?

Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net> Sun, 31 January 2021 23:30 UTC

Return-Path: <hmurray@megapathdsl.net>
X-Original-To: ntp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ntp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 101C63A138D for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 Jan 2021 15:30:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.036
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.036 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=1.951, PDS_RDNS_DYNAMIC_FP=0.001, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.982, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 21ndkGOAz84O for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 Jan 2021 15:30:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net [64.139.1.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8968C3A1389 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Sun, 31 Jan 2021 15:30:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shuksan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4993406061; Sun, 31 Jan 2021 15:30:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 with nmh-1.3
To: Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
cc: Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net>, NTP WG <ntp@ietf.org>
From: Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net>
In-Reply-To: Message from Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com> of "Sun, 31 Jan 2021 13:14:12 PST." <CACsn0c=1iNQLYpz_M8-TwLGNa0bBRGKNNGFgg7v=KEFQZfX5=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2021 15:30:04 -0800
Message-Id: <20210131233004.B4993406061@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/-Kkdv2N5218Yr6d8CckdSa2EeLo>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] Splitting the Roughtime draft?
X-BeenThere: ntp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ntp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ntp>, <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ntp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ntp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp>, <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2021 23:30:07 -0000

watsonbladd@gmail.com said:
>> Without a valid key, you can't verify that message so bad guys can forge 
one.
>> That seems like a nasty complication.  Do you want to go down that path?
> I miswrote: It would of course be signed by the key involved. 

It's still an additional complication to analyze.

You have to handle the case of bad-guy has a stolen key so now he can forge 
responses with bogus time.  How does being able to respond with key-invalid 
help things and is that worth the complexity of discussing key-invalid?



-- 
These are my opinions.  I hate spam.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email