IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] tcp-auth-opt issue: replay protection

"Adam Langley" <agl@imperialviolet.org> Wed, 06 August 2008 15:47 UTC

Return-Path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: tcpm-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-tcpm-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19CA23A6AA7; Wed, 6 Aug 2008 08:47:30 -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 587D73A6AA7 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Aug 2008 08:47:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.671
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.671 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.306, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
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 zo3E9l0NmTrK for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Aug 2008 08:47:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com (rv-out-0506.google.com [209.85.198.237]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7490F3A68BF for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Aug 2008 08:47:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id b25so2718428rvf.49 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 06 Aug 2008 08:48:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender :to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references :x-google-sender-auth; bh=ljA2eJTTwsupcTm7sy8aiwPSKM92ErSg8RvwrLToqM4=; b=URqXKEhEiWe+WHbb+K7gH2xTAkgooew94rywzua48jqBdnJGo4XLGeDXMWbMjXa42/ 46hJ50yihfC8IdL6/qRxrKqlqwXV6JOIOj6OkkNNFcwNO+hGxFhUURLEReCroCWquJZT B3oZ1KiN4qitdO0YlELEjCYJ/caXh/74su0dQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references:x-google-sender-auth; b=pow4Q1awDaA57MpRXWkxttwbR4KP53TCINIImtjQ0w0cAG3ZMk+ogjMgLwbWl+w12A vh35dGzMJ+waI38uDqSUFs8P9MFiqBRVQzGJxwUYWHqRoVibumkgFMh6YHub7Oe0eY8/ 4xHQS4JWBUJAy4U7u1iQzsPMbLRdoyaMQ7mXE=
Received: by 10.141.206.13 with SMTP id i13mr96623rvq.211.1218037680443; Wed, 06 Aug 2008 08:48:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.141.37.3 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Aug 2008 08:48:00 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <396556a20808060848g40df6251hf02467697ec44925@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 08:48:00 -0700
From: Adam Langley <agl@imperialviolet.org>
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
In-Reply-To: <4899BD4A.9040509@isi.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <20080728042451.C7A174B7AD3@kilo.rtfm.com> <20080730213253.B347F4D52E1@kilo.rtfm.com> <4890E9AE.3000607@isi.edu> <20080731001609.6511C4D5E34@kilo.rtfm.com> <489175BD.6040201@isi.edu> <396556a20807311010k78c22981xa0eebd1b46e9f619@mail.gmail.com> <48935983.80701@isi.edu> <3FBA635A-0473-4B58-86E2-C7523A35CE24@nokia.com> <20080806133734.7721D527252@kilo.rtfm.com> <4899BD4A.9040509@isi.edu>
X-Google-Sender-Auth: fa60b8d4cf286891
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tcpm] tcp-auth-opt issue: replay protection
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: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 8:03 AM, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> wrote:
> Does anyone know what happens to other options? I.e., aren't timestamps
> recomputed, SACK options recalculated, etc.? It seems like the options
> need to be revisited when a segment goes out the door anyway, and a
> stack that just replays segments is what might be considered "broken"...

I can speak for the Linux stack:

Buffers are kept around for retransmissions, but the buffers only
maintain the segment data. TCP and IP headers are recreated without
any reference to any previous transmissions.


AGL
-- 
Adam Langley agl@imperialviolet.org http://www.imperialviolet.org
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email