Re: [TERNLI] Forwarding corrupt packets

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Tue, 05 September 2006 00:25 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GKOkt-0006Fx-7w; Mon, 04 Sep 2006 20:25:31 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GKOks-0006Fr-4F for ternli@ietf.org; Mon, 04 Sep 2006 20:25:30 -0400
Received: from vapor.isi.edu ([128.9.64.64]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GKOkq-0001aS-Pn for ternli@ietf.org; Mon, 04 Sep 2006 20:25:30 -0400
Received: from [192.168.1.42] (pool-71-106-94-15.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net [71.106.94.15]) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k850OsdQ018630; Mon, 4 Sep 2006 17:24:54 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <44FCC3D5.4020403@isi.edu>
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 17:24:53 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (Windows/20060719)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>
Subject: Re: [TERNLI] Forwarding corrupt packets
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> <45186152-9613-4C22-92FF-53BCD2B22337@lurchi.franken.de>
In-Reply-To: <45186152-9613-4C22-92FF-53BCD2B22337@lurchi.franken.de>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigEDEE2F912D83B18A000866DB"
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 02ec665d00de228c50c93ed6b5e4fc1a
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


Michael Tuexen wrote:
> 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. 

If it isn't signed, then yes. But that holds for any message.

> 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.

Aren't these statements true for any unsigned SCTP message?

Joe