Re: Terminate message a security threat?

At 06:12 AM 1/4/2005, Jim Pinkerton wrote:
>Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>         boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C4F267.6FD91653"
>
>
>To date the security ID doesn’t discuss the Terminate Message. It was 
>suggested to me by Mallikarjun as part of his detailed review that since 
>all other messages are discussed, shouldn’t Terminate be?
>
>In thinking this through, I don’t believe this represents any new attacks. 
>If the Remote Peer is sending you a Terminate Message, then that ½ of the 
>Stream is terminated. So he just clobbered himself, but hasn’t been able 
>to affect any other connections – thus this is not a security issue. If a 
>third party is able to inject a Terminate Message into the data stream, 
>then it is a spoofing attack. The spoofing attack and mitigations are 
>already discussed. So I think at best the Terminate Message could be added 
>as an example of a spoofing attack, but honestly there are a ton of things 
>the spoofer could do, so I’m not sure I’d revise the draft just to add 
>another example.
>
>Does anyone see a hole in my reasoning?

I do not see this as a security threat - at best, just another example of 
existing issues that should be examined in any robust design.

Mike

>
>
>Jim
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>rddp mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp

_______________________________________________
rddp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp