RE: Reasonable to use crypto in all communications? (Re: Fwd: Minutes/Notes)

["marcelo bagnulo" <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>]

This is my last mail on this thread.

please read draft-nikander-mobileip-v6-ro-sec-01.txt

and then we can continue this exchange (probably when you read the draft
there will be no need to continue this, though)

i cannot say that i have invented those attacks, not even the terminology,
these are described in the draft and i am not one the authors.
I guess that the google hits that Kurt discovered are not my responsability
neither.

marcelo

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: owner-multi6@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-multi6@ops.ietf.org]En
> nombre de Masataka Ohta
> Enviado el: martes, 29 de julio de 2003 13:32
> Para: marcelo bagnulo
> CC: Pekka Nikander; multi6@ops.ietf.org
> Asunto: Re: Reasonable to use crypto in all communications? (Re: Fwd:
> Minutes/Notes)
>
>
> Marcelo;
>
> > > So far, it is just a well known MITM attack no specific to
> multihoming.
> >
> > Again, have you heard about time shifting attacks?
>
> Have you ever serached the phrase "time shifting attacks" on the web?
>
> There is no such attack.
>
> Please don't try to invent new terminology for nothing.
>
> > This type of attack is not possible in regular IPv6 communications and
> > multi-homing mechanisms can enable them.
>
> Wrong.
>
> > The same goes for some flooding attacks.
>
> By inventing "time shifting attack", you ignore two facts, at least.
>
> One is that DoS can not be prevented.
>
> The other is that there is timeout on bindings.
>
> 							Masataka Ohta
>