Re: [TERNLI] Forwarding corrupt packets

Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de> Mon, 04 September 2006 22:59 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GKNPV-0003QG-Cs; Mon, 04 Sep 2006 18:59:21 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GKNPU-0003QB-U2 for ternli@ietf.org; Mon, 04 Sep 2006 18:59:20 -0400
Received: from mail-n.franken.de ([193.175.24.27] helo=ilsa.franken.de) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GKNPT-0007ar-Hj for ternli@ietf.org; Mon, 04 Sep 2006 18:59:20 -0400
Received: from [192.168.1.50] (p508FCA94.dip.t-dialin.net [80.143.202.148]) by ilsa.franken.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48A27245D6; Tue, 5 Sep 2006 00:59:14 +0200 (CEST) (KNF account authenticated via SMTP-AUTH)
In-Reply-To: <44FCADA1.5040202@isi.edu>
References: <1157097623.3192.34.camel@lap10-c703.uibk.ac.at> <44F83E74.1080603@isi.edu> <1157121036.3192.148.camel@lap10-c703.uibk.ac.at> <44F84AD5.7070307@isi.edu> <1157131227.3192.220.camel@lap10-c703.uibk.ac.at> <44F8780D.9060503@isi.edu> <1157356740.3197.57.camel@lap10-c703.uibk.ac.at> <85C961BE-2B32-4A31-8235-49CCDCF1332D@lurchi.franken.de> <44FC2484.50201@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <EE4E54BA-BCEB-4DD7-86AB-B2A44A24ACD0@lurchi.franken.de> <44FC2CA7.90602@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <57784F3E-B93A-4D49-AEBA-F1124D952302@lurchi.franken.de> <1157390125.3291.43.camel@lap10-c703.uibk.ac.at> <4E862E2A-DF85-47C1-98A1-991F3CB58B27@lurchi.franken.de> <44FCADA1.5040202@isi.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <45186152-9613-4C22-92FF-53BCD2B22337@lurchi.franken.de>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>
Subject: Re: [TERNLI] Forwarding corrupt packets
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 00:59:09 +0200
To: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464
Cc: Randall Stewart <rrs@cisco.com>, ternli@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ternli@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport-Enhancing Refinements to the Network Layer Interface <ternli.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ternli>, <mailto:ternli-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ternli>
List-Post: <mailto:ternli@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ternli-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ternli>, <mailto:ternli-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ternli-bounces@ietf.org

Hi Joe,

comments in-line.

Best regards
Michael

On Sep 5, 2006, at 12:50 AM, Joe Touch wrote:

>
>
> Michael Tuexen wrote:
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>> see my comments in-line.
> ...
>> I think we have to consider two cases:
>> - An on path attacker....
>> - An off path attacker. ...
>
> Checksums are not protection from attacks.
Correct.
But the question was could the PKTDRP report be used for an attack.  
What I wanted to
make clear is the an on path attacker can use it, but he can do this  
even without PKTDRP.
An off path attacker has the same problem as for basic SCTP without  
PKTDRP.
>
> Joe
>