Re: [tcpm] new work item: TCP security issue

Mark Allman <mallman@icir.org> Wed, 21 April 2004 16:39 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA01392 for <tcpm-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 12:39:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BGKc9-0003s0-7V for tcpm-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 12:30:21 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i3LGULBr014873 for tcpm-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 12:30:21 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BGKQJ-0006TV-50 for tcpm-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 12:18:07 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00101 for <tcpm-web-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 12:18:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BGKQH-00036W-Nr for tcpm-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 12:18:05 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BGKPR-0002un-00 for tcpm-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 12:17:13 -0400
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BGKOd-0002jA-00 for tcpm-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 12:16:23 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BGJzt-0003C7-VD; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 11:50:49 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BGJuE-00005n-4y for tcpm@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 11:44:58 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA28097 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 11:44:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BGJuC-0004jh-Uu for tcpm@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 11:44:57 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BGJtE-0004VR-00 for tcpm@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 11:43:57 -0400
Received: from wyvern.icir.org ([192.150.187.14]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BGJsF-0004IO-00 for tcpm@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 11:42:55 -0400
Received: from guns.icir.org (adsl-68-76-113-50.dsl.bcvloh.ameritech.net [68.76.113.50]) by wyvern.icir.org (8.12.9p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i3LFgj7A034325; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 08:42:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mallman@guns.icir.org)
Received: from guns.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by guns.icir.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C46E77A6D5; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 11:42:44 -0400 (EDT)
To: "Randall Stewart (cisco)" <rrs@cisco.com>
From: Mark Allman <mallman@icir.org>
Reply-To: mallman@icir.org
Cc: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>, Jeremy Harris <jeremy.harris@uk.sun.com>, tcpm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tcpm] new work item: TCP security issue
In-Reply-To: <40868FD4.3080104@cisco.com>
Organization: ICSI Center for Internet Research (ICIR)
Song-of-the-Day: 57 Channels
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 11:42:44 -0400
Message-Id: <20040421154244.2C46E77A6D5@guns.icir.org>
Sender: tcpm-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: tcpm-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60

> One would have to treat this situation (assuming we went with
> a cookie.. or has we call it in SCTP a v-tag) like SCTP does...
> 
> i.e. you would need to have a bit to indicate that its "your tag"
> not the one I normally sent...

I'm not the sharpest tool so you're going to have to be a bit more
verbose... because I cannot parse the above at all.

Thanks,
allman


--
Mark Allman -- ICIR -- http://www.icir.org/mallman/