ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: RFC 2195 (Was: what happened to newtrk?)

2006-09-08 07:53:31
On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, Ned Freed wrote:

I don't think the lack of support for unencrypted IMAP or POP is quite
sufficient. What's to stop an attacker acting as a MITM (by
publishing a bogus SRV record or whatever) getting an unencypted connection 
and
turning around and connecting to the server using encryption?

That's exactly the scenario I was thinking of.


However, just because this and other attacks are real doesn't mean that 
there's
no security gain from a setup that's subject to downgrade attacks. Often as 
not
it is far more difficult to mount a MITM attack than it is to mount to perform
passive eavesdropping.

True.  However, spoofing a DNS response is often considerably easier than
mounting a MITM attack at the network layer.  Phill is correct that
deploying DNSSEC helps with this.  However, I don't see wide deployment of
DNSSEC today, and I'm not holding my breath.  Please, feel free to prove
my pessimism unwarranted.


-- Jeff


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>