North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Cisco's Statement about IPR Claimed in draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure
On 13-mei-04, at 19:07, Todd Vierling wrote: Whereas the Internet-Draft claims, by assuming that both source and destGuess what, they call them drafts because they're not finished yet. So why don't you say something to the author? A 2^[28..33] problem is much more difficult to attack than a 2^[14..16] (In case you're curious, 2^33 is achievable for things like BGP, where it'sI don't think you can fully randomize the source port as it might clash with well-known ports. Also, it may be somewhat expensive to make ports truly random. (But not as expensive as doing MD5 for the whole session.) But why are you assuming the window size is 64k? This is completely unnecessary, and not done in practice by "real" routers: those typically use a 16k window. It should even be possible to set the window to a very small size, such as 64 bytes. That's enough to receive the initial BGP header, after which the window can be set to a larger size until the session is idle again.
|