Re: My Broadcast

Thread View: mod.protocols.tcp-ip

2 messages

[T] Back to Threads [V] Tree View [G] Group Articles

2 total messages Started by faustus Mon, 06 Apr 1987 19:01

#1578

Author: faustus
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1987 19:01

9 lines
1086 bytes

What type of security are we really taking about, anyway?  Military security?
If so, maybe it's better that there are well-known loopholes so that nobody
places too much faith in their system and makes use of techniques like
public-key encryption when it really matters.  No matter how secure your
network and OS is, if you assume that it's ok to rely on their security alone
for very sensitive data, you'll get burned sooner or later.  It's much
safer to assume the worst and take proper precautions.

	Wayne

Re: My Broadcast

#1609

Author: MRC%PANDA
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1987 23:06

31 lines
2264 bytes

Wayne -

     In a sense your message is very reminiscent of the attitude of the
architects of MIT ITS.  It is a useful attitude in certain environments;
it has been argued that the security/integrity consciousness of TOPS-20
and Multics hampered tools development (or limited it to system wizards)
compared to systems such as ITS, WAITS, and Unix.  But this does not
mean that it is right for all environments.  Even in an environment in
which rwalld is useful, it's important to have safeguards in place to
limit its range.  In the present state of affairs, such safeguards are
either absent, not enabled, or inadequately documented.

     Just as an example, why did Dennis Perry's system at DARPA accept a
rwall from a machine somewhere at Berkeley?  Maybe Berkeley is doing such
time-critical research that breakthroughs must be announced by such
"network shouts", but I think it's much more likely that nobody at DARPA
even knew that such a facility existed or was running on their machine.

     Think of what would happen if our IP gateways supported an IP address
of FF.FF.FF.FF (the famous and as-yet mythical "Godzilla-gram").
Fortunately, no gateway does.  The same sort of sanity check needs to
be extended to higher-level protocols.

-- Mark --

PS: I could envision a security bug caused by the ability to broadcast
arbitrary characters to terminals on other systems.  Are all the rwalld
implementations clever enough to filter out control characters?  Also,
those of us who are old enough to know what "cookie bear" know that
broadcasting messages CAN effectively stop all work...
-------

Thread Navigation

This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.

Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.

Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.

Back to All Threads