Re: [Ntp] Antwort: Re: Antwort: Why Roughtime?

黄振天 <hzt23@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn> Tue, 16 January 2024 01:17 UTC

Return-Path: <hzt23@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn>
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 3B560C14F6A3 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jan 2024 17:17:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.995
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.995 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=mails.tsinghua.edu.cn
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fx_xg2Ew0JYY for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jan 2024 17:16:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zg8tndyumtaxlji0oc4xnzya.icoremail.net (zg8tndyumtaxlji0oc4xnzya.icoremail.net [46.101.248.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B48F5C14F5F2 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Jan 2024 17:16:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mails.tsinghua.edu.cn; s=dkim; h=Received:Date:From:To:Subject: Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID; bh=plOnCCr9ObAmVtW7PLRRLL7 1ZciDNVAeGVfurvAqZ04=; b=cyaVJQuEwmyD9ngLsWcWPzwEAYCS/A59fJ2s4tC j/F4pLm9oZnbWXj/da8czQQcjpx7sCq3+h5ZCgE4oyfqupsXZJ3xgDZen2ox1/Db Uzy8latkZtlvhKPUvvGMGItZlUB1zs0hmtE0QwgJfy0OZFQ6PvN1xg7OhG25AMZU gtvg=
Received: from hzt23$mails.tsinghua.edu.cn ( [183.172.61.232] ) by ajax-webmail-web4 (Coremail) ; Tue, 16 Jan 2024 09:16:46 +0800 (GMT+08:00)
X-Originating-IP: [183.172.61.232]
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2024 09:16:46 +0800
X-CM-HeaderCharset: UTF-8
From: 黄振天 <hzt23@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn>
To: ntp@ietf.org
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Coremail Webmail Server Version 2023.2-cmXT5 build 20230915(bf90896b) Copyright (c) 2002-2024 www.mailtech.cn mispb-4df55a87-4b50-4a66-85a0-70f79cb6c8b5-tsinghua.edu.cn
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_469647_946756767.1705367806386"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <665c2838.211c0.18d0fd7a1b2.Coremail.hzt23@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn>
X-Coremail-Locale: zh_CN
X-CM-TRANSID: ywQGZQBXv5T+2KVlBSOOAg--.24369W
X-CM-SenderInfo: xk2wjjo6pdxz3vow2x5qjk3toohg3hdfq/1tbiAgYSBWWktZ2W5AA CsK
X-Coremail-Antispam: 1Ur529EdanIXcx71UUUUU7IcSsGvfJ3iIAIbVAYjsxI4VWUJw CS07vEb4IE77IF4wCS07vE1I0E4x80FVAKz4kxMIAIbVAFxVCaYxvI4VCIwcAKzIAtYxBI daVFxhVjvjDU=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/8uBxBxAnMXIC2Z-L62Jy-7i0j4c>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 18 Jan 2024 12:55:52 -0800
Subject: Re: [Ntp] Antwort: Re: Antwort: Why Roughtime?
X-BeenThere: ntp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Time Protocol <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: Tue, 16 Jan 2024 01:28:42 -0000

Is the main purpose of roughtime to give the client evidence to report malfeasance on the part of the server?




There are many devices in the whole IPv4 network that need to get time, if all these devices request roughtime from the roughtime server, will the merkle tree be large? How do you consider the storage overhead for merkle tree?

If a malicious roughtime client provides a maliciously generated time chain to a normal roughtime server, is it an attack on the roughtime server and how to detect it?