Subject: RE: [rddp] RDDP Security - misc comments, 1-16

From: "Jim Pinkerton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 13:04:27 -0800

________________________________

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jim
Pinkerton
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 4:57 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [rddp] RDDP Security - misc comments, 1-16

Mike Krause has done a great job reviewing the doc and coming up with
questions. Because there are quite a few questions/issues raised, I'm
dividing them into multiple emails to help focus the discussion. This
email handles questions which don't bring up organizational issues,
through question 16. Organizational issues will be in a separate email.

> (9) 4.3 Is 4.3 just a place holder?  Not clear its relevance to the
draft

> as many system properties can be attacked but these are outside the
scope

> of RDMA itself.

This was included at the direction of security folks - in general, all
of the attacks described in the document fall into the category of
system integrity.  One thing that is not done in the document  is to
directly reference which categories the attacks fall into (integrity,
stability, confidentiality). Alternatively, if folks don't see a lot of
value in this section (i.e. what is being attacked is obvious), I could
just delete the section.

[<jim>] I'll just delete it. I chatted with Sara Bitan, my new co-author
on security, and the reality is that the concepts are pretty obvious -
and the rest of the document specifies the exact thing being attacked
and its repercussions, without referring to these generic, high level
concepts. And I don't think it adds to the paper to put a new sentence
after each attack stating which high level concept the attack applies
to.

Jim