ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] New Requirements: SSP must offer Highest Protection Possible

2006-08-01 18:10:18
From: "Stephen Farrell" <stephen(_dot_)farrell(_at_)cs(_dot_)tcd(_dot_)ie>
To: "Hector Santos" <hsantos(_at_)santronics(_dot_)com>

Now that sounds *very* complicated, or else, very marginal
(in terms of places it could be used).

A bank?  Maybe with the growing "e-Medical" market, a doctor? or in general
any high-value domain who will most likely have a Donald Trump "HUGE"
expectation for direct 1 to 1 like exclusivity with no middle ware
tampering.

I am not sure if you (speaking in general of course <g>) is questioning the
value of this or whether its possible to work or simply no one will want to
use it.

There is harm there - we'd at least be creating a new
DoS opportunity where none would exist otherwise, and
that I definitely dislike.

How would this Exclusive (I am the only one to sign) SSP policy DoS work and
if so, why would not there be a defense?

Or more general, where is the DoS where it would not be otherwise today?  I
just don't see how we are not defensive minded on DoS across the board, but
for this one, we are?


--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com










_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html