Re: [tcpm] tcp-security: Request for feedback on the outline of the document

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Tue, 25 August 2009 20:39 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@ISI.EDU>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46C683A6F96 for <>; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:39:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UYBqeTyLn9wr for <>; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:39:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04E563A6C69 for <>; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:39:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n7PKacNF021239; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:36:40 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:36:38 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Fernando Gont <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] tcp-security: Request for feedback on the outline of the document
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 20:39:02 -0000

Hash: SHA1

Fernando Gont wrote:
> Joe Touch wrote:
>>> e.g., think about the "Rose attack" described in the MSS section. The
>>> attack employs the TCP MSS option (and thus would be included in
>>> "control attacks" according to Joe's outline). However, the attack
>>> attempts to degrade performance. So.. where would the attack be finally
>>> included?
>>> Joe argues that "info leaking" and that port scanning is a "control
>>> attack". But one might argue that port scanning is, in some sense, an
>>> info leaking attack.
>> That's a property of any way of organizing the topics - there are bound
>> to be overlapping cases. 
> I don't think there's overlap in the current structure of the document.

The current document doesn't have the kind of structure I'm suggesting
is important.

>> The issue to me is that the outline I proposed
>> has easily recognized structure to it, and I at least know where various
>> attacks should go (even if they go in one place and are cross-referenced
>> and also discussed in others).
> IMO, the issue here is not whether one knows where to put them, but
> rather whether implementers would know where to find them.
> IMHO, I'd live the main structure "as is", and would add an alternate
> index (e.g., the one you proposed) in an appendix (as David suggested).

I don't see that as a useful way forward.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -