IETF Logo Mail Archive

tcpm-antispoof and TCP's weakness [Re: [tcpm] ICMP attacks draft (issue 1): hard errors -> soft errors (in synchronized states)]

Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi> Sat, 01 October 2005 05:34 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ELa1R-0003jk-Fq; Sat, 01 Oct 2005 01:34:57 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ELa1P-0003iw-WF for tcpm@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 01 Oct 2005 01:34:56 -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 BAA11610 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Sat, 1 Oct 2005 01:34:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ELa9O-00025I-6f for tcpm@ietf.org; Sat, 01 Oct 2005 01:43:12 -0400
Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j915YIr31801; Sat, 1 Oct 2005 08:34:18 +0300
Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 08:34:18 +0300
From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
To: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
Subject: tcpm-antispoof and TCP's weakness [Re: [tcpm] ICMP attacks draft (issue 1): hard errors -> soft errors (in synchronized states)]
In-Reply-To: <433D85BD.4020204@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0510010830320.31739@netcore.fi>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126
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 Fri, 30 Sep 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.

While you as an editor of a WG document may have such an individual 
opinion, I didn't get that impression from the draft, and I'd like to 
see the draft changed if that was the intended tone.

While the TCP's security (not considering ICMPs) is not very strong, I 
do not think it can be classified as "weak" either, especially in 
scenarios where certain insecurities of IP (e.g., source address 
spoofing) can be eliminated.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email