Re: [OPSEC] Fwd: Security Assessment of the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)

Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Sat, 14 February 2009 03:27 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.com>
X-Original-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 495203A69B3; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 19:27:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JBX0xXqe0rZK; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 19:27:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EE0D3A682B; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 19:27:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.11.143] (c-67-171-158-173.hsd1.wa.comcast.net [67.171.158.173]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n1E3RMgI076517 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 14 Feb 2009 03:27:23 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
Message-ID: <49963A14.1090106@bogus.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 19:27:16 -0800
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090105)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
References: <4994A4EB.5030607@gmail.com> <0B030ADA-F621-4FDF-9CAF-23A27C16E26B@multicasttech.com> <49961BDB.9030905@network-heretics.com>
In-Reply-To: <49961BDB.9030905@network-heretics.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.94.2/8989/Fri Feb 13 18:29:24 2009 on nagasaki.bogus.com
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Cc: opsec wg mailing list <opsec@ietf.org>, Marshall Eubanks <tme@multicasttech.com>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OPSEC] Fwd: Security Assessment of the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)
X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: opsec wg mailing list <opsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec>, <mailto:opsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsec>
List-Post: <mailto:opsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec>, <mailto:opsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 03:27:20 -0000

Keith Moore wrote:
> Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>> If I am reading this correctly the UK Centre for the Protection of
>> National Infrastructure
>> wants the IETF (or some other body) to produce a "companion document to
>> the IETF specifications that discusses the security aspects and
>> implications of the protocols, identifies the existing vulnerabilities,
>> discusses the possible countermeasures, and analyses their respective
>> effectiveness."
> 
> It's difficult to imagine that these things could be adequately captured
> in a static document, for TCP or any other protocol, because new threats
> and countermeasures continue to be identified decades after the base
> protocol is well-settled.  Maybe something like an expanded version of
> the RFC Editor's errata pages would be more appropriate?

One might imagine an informational document which was routinely
obsoleted by future iterations. Keeping it tractable is a product of
necessarily limiting the scope.

> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>