Subject: Re: [tcpm] security draft input request

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 13:56:41 -0400

>> I think that minor TCP updates for security will give a false sense of
>> security (no pun intended) and will need constant revision as
>> attackers undoubtedly will outsmart the fixes.  I'm sure that the
>> entire internet cannot update its TCP stack for every new threat.

>I agree with this statement.  But, from the analysis in the i-d it would
>seem as if the technique makes these blind attacks quite hard.  Do you
>have further thoughts into the vulnerability of the proposed scheme?  If
>you do, I think that would be very useful to hear.

That's a fair question, I don't have any specific technical issues in
mind at this time.  I planned on spending more time looking at the i-d
until you posted your input request.  You did ask for high-level non
i-d specific input, and it seems to me if we settle on option 1 or 2
the i-d is not relevant.  If I am mistaken, please let me know more
about how things will move forward with the i-d so that I can be
more helpful.

Aaron

_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

---

From: Mark Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 14:01:54 -0400

> about how things will move forward with the i-d so that I can be more
> helpful.

You are right.

I was just curious as to whether there were specifics of the given
proposal that were making you shy away from choosing that option.

Thanks,
allman

--
Mark Allman -- ICIR -- http://www.icir.org/mallman/