IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] PoC for draft-moncaster-tcpm-rcv-cheat-02

"Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com> Wed, 26 March 2008 20:03 UTC

Return-Path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-tcpm-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-tcpm-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFCD428C6A3; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:03:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.982
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.982 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.545, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DlgMg-DPha0Z; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:03:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D482B3A6E0F; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:03:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16CFE3A6DE0 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:02:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I+ieVdC4HNRF for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:02:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32E173A6E0F for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:02:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Mar 2008 13:00:34 -0700
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2QK0X4b000360; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:00:33 -0700
Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2QK0X3f026873; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 20:00:33 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.176]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:00:33 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:00:05 -0700
Message-ID: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC5804E8BAEE@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <78C9135A3D2ECE4B8162EBDCE82CAD7703442C8F@nekter>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] PoC for draft-moncaster-tcpm-rcv-cheat-02
Thread-Index: AciPeHeZCoeZEn+kS+GO1mq7bxBifQAAFVNAAABRfBA=
References: <200803260029.33658.v13@v13.gr><20080326042515.GD24842@cs.umd.edu><200803261438.m2QEchkI001007@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk><alpine.LRH.1.10.0803262012190.27746@netcore.fi><20080326193338.GO24842@cs.umd.edu> <78C9135A3D2ECE4B8162EBDCE82CAD7703442C8F@nekter>
From: "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com>
To: Caitlin Bestler <Caitlin.Bestler@neterion.com>, Rob Sherwood <capveg@cs.umd.edu>, Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Mar 2008 20:00:33.0103 (UTC) FILETIME=[0CA6BDF0:01C88F7C]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2009; t=1206561633; x=1207425633; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=ananth@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Anantha=20Ramaiah=20(ananth)=22=20<ananth@cisco .com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[tcpm]=20PoC=20for=20draft-moncaster-tc pm-rcv-cheat-02 |Sender:=20; bh=JsKuE2ciAoO3jGEUiaLAposIQoZss+zX5vWMWiFV794=; b=E0xS0gY03JgPy7RisB8ZPbfvM8RUtoogJ+eFDwULcSvG7i8JYPonl1yD7d Dua7SE+YeJaXVNMTpyOsB7KfzDRC1Mr7JNVII2gm+mDC4MwoPw5HskhytpzK /ao2/DUJGk;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=ananth@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; );
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tcpm] PoC for draft-moncaster-tcpm-rcv-cheat-02
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

 
Ok the following a general comment/observation and just my opinion. 

There are a class of problems that CAN be solved in application layers,
but those solution doesn't scale ( all applications need to be fixed),
in such cases if we make minor tweaks in the transport layer with larger
benefits ( meaning a multitude of transport apps), and if the benefits
of doing so outweigh the drawbacks, then we should hoenstly pursue or
make an attempt to pursue it. In other words a rejection of a transport
proposal cannot be simply based on the fact that "you can possibly solve
this in application layer", wait a minute, I am also not advocating that
all applications problems need to be solved in transport layers.

Well, David Clark's quote on layering comes to mind as well.

S0.02,
-Anantha

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:tcpm-bounces@ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Caitlin Bestler
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 12:41 PM
> To: Rob Sherwood; Pekka Savola
> Cc: tcpm@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [tcpm] PoC for draft-moncaster-tcpm-rcv-cheat-02
> 
> > Rob Sherwood wrote
> > 
> > I contact vendors in 2005, and the response was luke warm 
> (as was the 
> > response on this list).  My take on this issue is that people are 
> > divided into three[1] camps:
> > 
> > a) people who do not believe this attack practical
> > b) people who believe the attack is practical, but not dangerous
> enough
> > 	to motivate patching TCP implementations
> 
> I'd rephrase that as:
> 
> b) people who believe the attack is practical, but that the 
> problem is an
>    application layer problem that should be solved at the 
> application layer
>  -- and especially not by transport layer solutions that would have a
>     negative impact on honest connections.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
> 
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email