[Seat] Re: Updated Attacker Model in SEAT Use Cases Draft

[Songbo Bu <[e-mail]>]

Tiru,

Thank you for the answers. I want to followup more narrowly.

The link between the following is missing:
Threat model => Security goals

The following section is missing:
Formal properties

On cross-connection replay handling: I think we can agree on desired
handling in this draft and solutions can then implement this.

On CVE-2026-33697: This is already exploited in the wild. Therefore, please
make it explicit in the threat model. I don't think "cross-connection
replay" is a standard term in the literature. I think CVE-2026-33697 is
related to relay and not "cross-connection replay". Therefore, as a first
step, making it explicit in the draft is useful for further discussion.

Best,
Songbo

tirumal reddy <[e-mail]> 于2026年8月18日周二 14:26写道：

> Hi Songbo,
>
> Right now the focus is to capture all the relevant threat vectors. Formal
> properties come later, after the WG concludes on the attacker model, attack
> vectors and security requirements.
>
> On cross-connection replay: how a solution detects and handles it (abort
> or otherwise) is a separate discussion for the solution drafts, not this
> document.
> On CVE-2026-33697: it is an instance of the cross-connection and relay
> class already covered in the PR. What is it you would like to see covered
> about it in the draft ?
>
> Best Regards,
> -Tiru
>
> On Tue, 18 Aug 2026 at 07:39, Songbo Bu <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Tiru,
>>
>> Thank you. I have one narrow suggestion and two questions.
>>
>> I think the draft's flow could be:
>>
>> Threat model => Security goals => Formal properties
>>
>> The draft does not currently state the desired behavior when the
>> server attempts a "cross-connection replay." Should the connection be
>> aborted?
>>
>> How is CVE-2026-33697 covered by the threat model?
>>
>> Best,
>> Songbo
>>
>