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>
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 C10593A69BB for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:38:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 q4uwm2MkY2Kk for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:38:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A08623A6FEA for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:37:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.9.168.63] (bet.isi.edu [128.9.168.63]) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n7PJZ6aY007464; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:35:08 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4A943CEA.4000905@isi.edu>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:35:06 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
References: <4A8CBF98.1070809@gont.com.ar> <4A8D939E.9050008@isi.edu> <C304DB494AC0C04C87C6A6E2FF5603DB479B7E7359@NDJSSCC01.ndc.nasa.gov> <4A94307E.2080209@gont.com.ar>
In-Reply-To: <4A94307E.2080209@gont.com.ar>
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
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] tcp-security: Request for feedback on the outline of the document
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-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm>
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>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 19:38:32 -0000
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- 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). Joe -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iD8DBQFKlDzqE5f5cImnZrsRAsh4AKC6IVV3YsRKffKyhpT31tWy35TF2wCfdeR+ iZPojsKI6SCcBhmC2hM3Ubc= =6s++ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- [tcpm] tcp-security: Request for feedback on the … Fernando Gont
- Re: [tcpm] tcp-security: Request for feedback on … Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] tcp-security: Request for feedback on … Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[Verizon]
- Re: [tcpm] tcp-security: Request for feedback on … Fernando Gont
- Re: [tcpm] tcp-security: Request for feedback on … Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] tcp-security: Request for feedback on … Fernando Gont
- Re: [tcpm] tcp-security: Request for feedback on … Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] tcp-security: Request for feedback on … Fernando Gont
- Re: [tcpm] tcp-security: Request for feedback on … toby.moncaster
- Re: [tcpm] tcp-security: Request for feedback on … Alfred Hönes
- Re: [tcpm] tcp-security: Request for feedback on … Fernando Gont
- Re: [tcpm] tcp-security: Request for feedback on … Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] tcp-security: Request for feedback on … Fernando Gont
- Re: [tcpm] tcp-security: Request for feedback on … Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] tcp-security: Request for feedback on … Fernando Gont
- Re: [tcpm] tcp-security: Request for feedback on … Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] tcp-security: Request for feedback on … Fernando Gont
- Re: [tcpm] tcp-security: Request for feedback on … toby.moncaster
- Re: [tcpm] tcp-security: Request for feedback on … Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[Verizon]
- Re: [tcpm] tcp-security: Request for feedback on … Fernando Gont
- Re: [tcpm] tcp-security: Request for feedback on … Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] tcp-security: Request for feedback on … Fernando Gont
- Re: [tcpm] tcp-security: Request for feedback on … Lars Eggert
- Re: [tcpm] tcp-security: Request for feedback on … Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] tcp-security: Request for feedback on … Fernando Gont