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

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Tue, 25 August 2009 19:38 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@ISI.EDU>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C10593A69BB for <>; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:38:32 -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 q4uwm2MkY2Kk for <>; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:38:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A08623A6FEA for <>; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:37:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n7PJZ6aY007464; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:35:08 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:35:06 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090605)
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 19:38:32 -0000

Hash: SHA1

Fernando Gont wrote:
> Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[Verizon] wrote:
>>> Then it'd be useful to break down TCP into its component parts, as
>>> introduced in 2a:
>>> 	3 control attacks
>>> 		header fields
>>> 		option fields
>>> 		connection establishment
>>> 		connection termination
>>> 		port scanning
> [....]
>> I like the hierarchy that Joe suggests; it groups similar issues and
>> recommendations together, and I agree with  him that it would pose
>> no difficulty for implementers to use.
> I think that for many attacks, the outline Joe is proposing becomes
> ambiguous.
> 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. 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).


Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -