Re: [Ntp] Antw: Re: Follow-up to yesterday's mic comment about PTP security

[[e-mail]]

> >> The "half the RTT" error bound can be improved somewhat if you know
> >> the physical distance between yourself and the server. In which case
> > 
> > The probem is the "distance" here, as it definitely refers to 
> "cable length",
> > or more specifically "route length". Back in the time when the WWW 
started,
> > connections inside Germany were routed via USA sometimes (that was the 
time
> > whan a "good" transferrate was near 5kB/s). To make matters worse,you 
cannot
> > safely assume that the route (length) from A to B will be the same
> as from B to
> > A.
> 
> A MITM can still do at least a delay attack.

None of that matters for what Daniel is saying.
A packet can still not have arrived *faster* than with lightspeed via the 
shortest line between the two devices.
And that's all you need to derive that the situation is in fact marginally 
better than "half of RTT (plus oscillator-related delta)".

> 
> >> the error bound is ±(RTT/2 - distance / speed_of_light), because it 
is
> >> safe to assume that the network adversary does not have a wormhole
> >> through which to route your packets. (If you do have one, Akamai 
wants
> >> your resume).