On Tue, 2006-01-31 at 11:28 +0100, Tom Petch wrote:
So I want to see a simpler solution - eg keyed hash - first and a more complex
one which includes encryption as phase two (2007?).
And yes, my views are coloured by SNMP which I have worked with for many
years,
where, as I have said
FWIW: I agree with Baszi in all points.
Rainer
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Balazs Scheidler
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 2:35 PM
To: Tom Petch
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Syslog] Threat model
Hi,
Since syslog and snmp are both IETF standards for network management, I think
it would be beneficial to consider the same set of security requirements. The
set of requirements in RFC3411 have undergone signficant review within the
IETF, and especially within the security community of the
- Original Message -
From: Chris Lonvick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 9:24 PM
Subject: [Syslog] Threat model requirements discussion
Hi Folks,
We need to back up a moment and formalize our thoughts on the threats
discussion
- Original Message -
From: Chris Lonvick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 9:24 PM
Subject: [Syslog] Threat model requirements discussion
Hi Folks,
We need to back up a moment and formalize our thoughts
On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 18:10 +0100, Tom Petch wrote:
I disagree. I think this list of threats is excessive.
As I have said before, I regard integrity and message origin authentication as
the needs, with modification and spoofing as the threats. I do not see
observation as a problem and
Hi Folks,
We need to back up a moment and formalize our thoughts on the threats that we
are going to address to secure syslog messages. We need to have this
discussion to ensure that any mechanism we decide to provide will address the
threats. The summary of our discussion will likely be
