IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Lloyd Wood <l.wood@eim.surrey.ac.uk> Thu, 29 September 2005 16:21 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EL19h-0007tP-MB; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:21:09 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EL19f-0007tH-Ch for tcpm@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:21:07 -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 MAA21077 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:21:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from prue.eim.surrey.ac.uk ([131.227.76.5] ident=exim) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EL1HL-0006YX-4I for tcpm@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:29:04 -0400
Received: from argos.ee.surrey.ac.uk ([131.227.89.15] ident=eep1lw) by prue.eim.surrey.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #4) id 1EL191-0002tt-00; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 17:20:27 +0100
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 17:20:19 +0100
From: Lloyd Wood <l.wood@eim.surrey.ac.uk>
X-X-Sender: eep1lw@argos.ee.surrey.ac.uk
To: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] ICMP attacks draft (issue 1): hard errors -> soft errors (in synchronized states)
In-Reply-To: <433C126F.5010400@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.50.0509291718560.26005-100000@argos.ee.surrey.ac.uk>
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> <4334345F.2060301@isi.edu> <6.2.0.14.0.20050927013116.03fedc70@pop.frh.utn.edu.ar> <4339AB09.70501@isi.edu> <6.2.0.14.0.20050928034642.08012bf0@pop.frh.utn.edu.ar> <433BDFB8.4090407@isi.edu> <6.2.0.14.0.20050929120406.03d79008@pop.frh.utn.edu.ar> <433C0C47.3080207@isi.edu> <6.2.0.14.0.20050929125335.03d67e90@pop.frh.utn.edu.ar> <433C126F.5010400@isi.edu>
Organization: speaking for none
X-url: http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/
X-no-archive: yes
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-102.5 required=7.0 tests=EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES, REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,USER_AGENT_PINE,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=ham version=2.55
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp)
X-Scanner: exiscan *1EL191-0002tt-00*nNojZvUAkrA* (SECM, UniS)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org, Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
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>
Sender: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Joe Touch wrote:

> Fernando Gont wrote:
> > At 12:46 p.m. 29/09/2005, Joe Touch wrote:
> ...
> >> That presumes I think that there is a viable way to secure ICMP, which I
> >> don't so far.
> >
> > No. That means you are making an argument for a protocol which is
> > already unreliable.
>
> Yes, I am. Or have you disabled all non-IPsec'd connections to your site?

How, exactly, does one go and equate unreliable with insecure?
Entirely different things.


> No technical rational for overriding spec or process was given in either
> case. They appear to have just slipped through - i.e., an error.

I would argue that the formation of the ROHC workgroup was the error.

L.

<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/><L.Wood@eim.surrey.ac.uk>

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email