IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] ICMP attacks draft (issue 1): hard errors -> soft errors (in synchronized states)

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Fri, 30 September 2005 19:49 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ELQt8-0005mG-QV; Fri, 30 Sep 2005 15:49:46 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ELQt7-0005mB-C6 for tcpm@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 30 Sep 2005 15:49:45 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA03515 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Sep 2005 15:49:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu ([128.9.160.161]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ELR11-0008DQ-Gr for tcpm@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Sep 2005 15:57:56 -0400
Received: from [128.9.176.136] (ras36.isi.edu [128.9.176.136]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j8UJmOL07192; Fri, 30 Sep 2005 12:48:25 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <433D9685.5080501@isi.edu>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 12:48:21 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] ICMP attacks draft (issue 1): hard errors -> soft errors (in synchronized states)
References: <6.2.0.14.0.20050923075214.0428faa8@pop.frh.utn.edu.ar> <433411E2.3020005@isi.edu> <6.2.0.14.0.20050923125332.04320008@pop.frh.utn.edu.ar> <20050923165017.GD10959@pun.isi.edu> <6.2.0.14.0.20050927015438.07c2a418@pop.frh.utn.edu.ar> <20050930174011.GK999@pun.isi.edu> <6.2.0.14.0.20050930150854.0592eee0@pop.frh.utn.edu.ar> <433D85BD.4020204@isi.edu> <6.2.0.14.0.20050930155718.05963118@pop.frh.utn.edu.ar>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050930155718.05963118@pop.frh.utn.edu.ar>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.92.0.0
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 39bd8f8cbb76cae18b7e23f7cf6b2b9f
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org, Ted Faber <faber@ISI.EDU>
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.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://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2045539502=="
Sender: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org


Fernando Gont wrote:
> At 03:36 p.m. 30/09/2005, Joe Touch wrote:
...
>> > "The strength of  a chain is that of the weakest link", I mean.
>>
>> But TCP-antispoof explains that the chain is already sufficiently weak
>> in many cases even if you try to fix ICMP.
> 
> It's weak. But we are making it weaker unnecessarily.

What's weaker than weak enough? (and why would we need to modify a core
Internet protocol if it's still weak enough)?

Joe

_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email