Re: [tcpm] draft-zimmermann-tcpm-undeployed

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

On 10/21/2014 4:47 AM, Zimmermann, Alexander wrote:
...
>> So why is it no longer recommended? The IESG statement also calls for explanation for the transition.
> 
> See for example this thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg81410.html
> (or http://marc.info/?t=137611379100002&r=1&w=2)
> 
> 	Wes: „There are probably security issues“
> 	Joe: „There are semantics issues to; see draft-touch-tcp-portnames-00 for information“
> 	Bob Braden: „Indeed, TCPMUX is quite historic… it represents a Road Not Taken“
> 
> Another source is: draft-touch-tcpm-sno-02.txt
> 
> If Joe, Wes or Bob think now that we should not obsolete TCPMUX, fine by me.
> I thought we reflect w/ draft-zimmermann-tcpm-undeployed their (the community)
> opinion. 

It's a huge hole in any sort of firewall, not to mention numerous
specific attacks. I support obsoleting it, but the reason needs to be
clear - severity of vulnerability and lack of deployed clients, NOT lack
of deployed servers with this capability.

I.e., although (x)inetd understands incoming requests, unmodified user
applications can't simply change to port 1 and work; they need to send
the actual service name as user data, and I don't know of any that do that.

Joe