Subject: Re: BPI ECR 99037

From: Ramname Reena <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 08:46:46 -0500

-----Original Message-----
From: Gervais John 
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 1999 4:41 PM
To: 'Bob Himlin'; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: Ramname Reena; Wittman Brian
Subject: RE: BPI ECR 99037

Thanks for bringing this to our attention Bob; we've been swamped.  We've
reviewed the ECR and here's our reply.  Reena, please forward this to the
docsis-sec reflector ( I'm not a member ).

Thomson very strongly objects to this ECR mandating ROM in the modem.  If
properly maintained, Flash memory is quite reasonably secure and infinitely
more flexible than ROM.  Adding an additional ROM part on the board
complicates the manufacturing process and increases cost.  In addition, if a
security hole is found in the factory loaded ROM image, it cannot be
eliminated.  Factory images typically become just very old code.  Finally, a
"bootstrap" for a DOCSIS modem is about 90% of the code required for full
DOCSIS compliance; the effort to find the 10% that is not needed is
unwarranted.  We prefer this being left up to product differentiation.

Thomson also has very strong reservations about letting the user revert
between code images.  This is especially concerning if the second image in
the modem has a security hole.  In the case of a factory installed ROM image
and the user's ability to revert to it, a security hole becomes unrepairable
and trivial to exploit.

John Gervais, Thomson Consumer Electronics  (317)587-4227
[email-masked]

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Himlin [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday,May 26,1999 1:59 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: BPI ECR 99037

Folks,

I'm wondering if I'm the only one that sees a problem with the ECR currently
proposed for BPI+, bpi-r-99037.  I've sent several comments to the
docsis-sec reflector, but I don't see any comments from other vendors,
specifically on the usage of two files for a SW upgrade, and also the
requirement for a ROM factory code image that can always be reverted to
using a user-accessible switch.  Please have the appropriate CM designers at
your company review this ECR and comment to docsis-sec.  Comment period
expires 6/2/99.

Bob Himlin
TurboNet Communications

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 1999 11:24 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Latest MAC-14 ATP

Lucy, Bob, and John,

John and I got together on the phone and consolidated our changes.
If you want any more input to this, please review this by Friday so Jason
can submit the ECR. The only somewhat major change that was made since my
last revision was a removal of some of the checking of docsDevSwFilename and
docsDevSwServer as a requirement for passing some of the tests. The spec is
still somewhat ambiguous on the descriptions of these objects, and
getting concensus is going to be near impossible. On the applicable tests we
felt the most important thing was that the CM completed the upgrade,
( or not depending on the test ), and reports the correct values for
docsDevSwAdminStatus, docsDevSwOperStatus and sysdesc.

Thanks.

Lisa

 <<mac-14.doc>>