[OPSEC] [Errata Verified] RFC6274 (7887)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Tue, 09 April 2024 23:38 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com>
X-Original-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD536C14F6BB; Tue, 9 Apr 2024 16:38:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.648
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.648 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 O4dMCj2bCZ7T; Tue, 9 Apr 2024 16:38:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (rfcpa.amsl.com [50.223.129.200]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E216C14F6AF; Tue, 9 Apr 2024 16:38:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id 3AB5813BB51E; Tue, 9 Apr 2024 16:38:47 -0700 (PDT)
To: niklas.baerveldt@gmail.com, fernando@gont.com.ar
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: rfc-ed@rfc-editor.org, iesg@ietf.org, opsec@ietf.org, iana@iana.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20240409233847.3AB5813BB51E@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2024 16:38:47 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsec/JjLNEdVgtoSorBqBsFcKBCxBQ9w>
Subject: [OPSEC] [Errata Verified] RFC6274 (7887)
X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: opsec wg mailing list <opsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsec>, <mailto:opsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 09 Apr 2024 23:38:52 -0000
The following errata report has been verified for RFC6274, "Security Assessment of the Internet Protocol Version 4". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7887 -------------------------------------- Status: Verified Type: Editorial Reported by: Niklas Baerveldt <niklas.baerveldt@gmail.com> Date Reported: 2024-04-08 Verified by: RFC Editor Section: .8.4 Original Text ------------- The attacker is: o Four hops away from A. o Four hops away from B. o Four hops away from C. o Four hops away from D. In the network setup of Figure 3, the only system that satisfies all these conditions is the one marked as the "F". Corrected Text -------------- The attacker is: o Four hops away from A. o Four hops away from B. o Four hops away from C. o Three hops away from D. In the network setup of Figure 6, the only system that satisfies all these conditions is the one marked as the "F". Notes ----- Since the packets that D gets has a TTL of 62 while A,B and C gets packets with TTL of 61, it should be that D is one less hop away than the others. This also seems to be illustrated in Figure 6. Text that seems to refer to the network setup of Figure 6 references to incorrect figure number 3. -------------------------------------- RFC6274 (draft-ietf-opsec-ip-security-07) -------------------------------------- Title : Security Assessment of the Internet Protocol Version 4 Publication Date : July 2011 Author(s) : F. Gont Category : INFORMATIONAL Source : Operational Security Capabilities for IP Network Infrastructure Stream : IETF
- [OPSEC] [Errata Verified] RFC6274 (7887) RFC Errata System