Re: [websec] Is sniffing a heuristic? (was Re: more on sniffing)
SM <sm@resistor.net> Mon, 09 January 2012 10:07 UTC
Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: websec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: websec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AFAE21F86E0 for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 02:07:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uZ-OFrV-bF6f for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 02:07:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64CCB21F86DE for <websec@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 02:07:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q09A70OJ010592 for <websec@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 02:07:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1326103624; i=@resistor.net; bh=hDdn9X8dukegG4rgClffCrsfzWun0q53eJEHivyF0fA=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=ePhcrtvqSWrq6lWHLmBsUNslk7WQDedzuvXBGo+8v+2Uc4CBssFDA6tlF+QjXK2uQ CdVGXnbp+JFxcUTONYlBAKL+6SrTvUh5m2OT0xgauEyRFaQnUyzqHWBruJCA3n1Zmh dRvrKQ24uxFGP5jZYPKnvOe8c84DlH0f45S5yDko=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120109014331.0a139690@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 02:02:13 -0800
To: websec@ietf.org
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <4F0AAF9D.2080006@mozilla.org>
References: <CAJE5ia8dVwtr5Qe3DqyrDiFk7B0_3nEJD50=RewXK5RbB37LMQ@mail.gmail.com> <mj5kg717bt1nsq4scnm7022oeo41vglfje@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> <4F0AAF9D.2080006@mozilla.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: Re: [websec] Is sniffing a heuristic? (was Re: more on sniffing)
X-BeenThere: websec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Web Application Security Minus Authentication and Transport <websec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/websec>, <mailto:websec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/websec>
List-Post: <mailto:websec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:websec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec>, <mailto:websec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 10:07:07 -0000
At 01:13 09-01-2012, Gervase Markham wrote:
>(Slightly off-topic) I rather like this definition:
>http://lwn.net/Articles/461584/
>(quote 2)
"No matter if it is a white cat or a black cat; as long as it can catch
mice, it is a good cat."
The question is whether the focus should be about catching the mice
or determining whether the cat should be white or black.
From RFC 4960:
"Since there is no explicit identifier that can be used to detect
out-of-order SACKs, the data sender must use heuristics to determine
if a SACK is new."
I'd say that sniffing is a heuristic.
Regards,
-sm
- [websec] Is sniffing a heuristic? (was Re: more o… Adam Barth
- Re: [websec] Is sniffing a heuristic? (was Re: mo… Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [websec] Is sniffing a heuristic? (was Re: mo… Gervase Markham
- Re: [websec] Is sniffing a heuristic? (was Re: mo… SM