Re: [tcpm] poll for adopting draft-gont-tcp-security

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Wes,

Taking a look at your proposed objectives:

Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[Verizon] wrote:
...
> As a systems engineer, my first thought is always for requirements, so
> when I looked at Fernando's document, my question was if we're intending
> to do a "TCP implementation profile" for security, then what are the
> actual requirements to build to ... something like:
> 
> - TCP MUST be able to be implemented in a way free of exploitable
>   conditions leading to:
>   - unbounded memory utilization
>   - unbounded CPU utilization
>   - data injection by off-path third-parties
>   - connection breakage by off-path third-parties
>   - packet amplification by off-path third parties
>   - ...

I don't understand why TCP must be able to be implemented in a secure
fashion. It wasn't designed that way.

It would be more useful, IMO, to at least admit that and change the
above to acknowledge that, e.g., (changing the wording and the level
down to SHOULD):

- - TCP SHOULD be able to be implemented in a way that mitigates, to the
extent possible, the impact of exploitable conditions leading to:

- - Where further protection from exploitable conditions is required, a
protocol designed for security may be required; TCP is not intended to
serve this purpose, either with or without security extensions.

Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkpKPucACgkQE5f5cImnZrufVwCg/iNLT0IYw6UuwpBWKFc2dLgx
l/oAoPRYgZY8RgxzWy6gjinv8Qs8PWJO
=ZeEv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----