IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [saag] should we revise rfc 3365?

Mouse <mouse@Rodents-Montreal.ORG> Thu, 24 May 2012 13:16 UTC

Return-Path: <mouse@Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG>
X-Original-To: saag@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: saag@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C3A321F8570 for <saag@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 May 2012 06:16:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.356
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.356 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.632, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CGdFJifuYjru for <saag@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 May 2012 06:16:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG (Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG [216.46.5.7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A49CC21F853D for <saag@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 May 2012 06:16:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from mouse@localhost) by Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA02463; Thu, 24 May 2012 09:16:29 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 09:16:29 -0400
From: Mouse <mouse@Rodents-Montreal.ORG>
Message-Id: <201205241316.JAA02463@Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Erik-Conspiracy: There is no Conspiracy - and if there were I wouldn't be part of it anyway.
X-Message-Flag: Microsoft: the company who gave us the botnet zombies.
X-Composition-Start-Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 09:11:59 -0400 (EDT)
To: saag@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <999913AB42CC9341B05A99BBF358718D017BA1BE@FIESEXC035.nsn-intra.net>
References: <4FBD6A78.2070204@cs.tcd.ie><201205232351.TAA23415@Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG><4FBD873D.3090802@isi.edu> <201205240339.XAA25498@Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG> <999913AB42CC9341B05A99BBF358718D017BA1BE@FIESEXC035.nsn-intra.net>
Subject: Re: [saag] should we revise rfc 3365?
X-BeenThere: saag@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Advisory Group <saag.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/saag>, <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/saag>
List-Post: <mailto:saag@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag>, <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 13:16:31 -0000

>>> [...] the difference between system and user ports...
>> I submit that attempting to make such a distinction is effectively
>> meaningless, and has been ever since [...]
> I see this argument quite often that we should not impose strong
> security requirements on protocols because there may be this use case
> where no security is needed.

That wasn't my argument here.  My argument is that "system port" versus
"user port" is not a useful distinction.  This is not to say that
security is unnecessary or a bad idea, just that as far as I can see
privileged ports are not a useful way to get any security for
general-purpose use, neither today nor in the foreseeable future.

/~\ The ASCII				  Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML		mouse@rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email