Subject: [midcom] Rogue Routers and Compromised Servers

From: Mark Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 02:09:47 -0700 (PDT)

Previously someone pointed out that a compromised STUN
server could be used to eavesdrop on any connection
that was enabled by it. The chair pointed out that
this should not be a concern of any security
discussion on STUN since this issue was not solvable
within the protocol. Yesterday, it was pointed out
that the 'Huitema' attack was really an issue of
'rogue routers' and again not solvable within the
protocol and so should be excluded from STUN security
consideration. However even with the un-solvability of
this attack, it was urged that the possibility of an
entity seeing STUN requests fly by and sending a false
reply to insert itself into the path should remain
under consideration. 

What entity would this be? If compromised STUN servers
and rogue routers cannot be handled within the
protocol, what entity in the network could be used to
mount the false reply attack? How would they differ in
principle for security than a router or server?

It has been pointed out again previously that if the
attacker is on the local LAN, it can use any number of
techniques to both eavesdrop and mount DOS attacks
outside of the STUN protocol.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
http://launch.yahoo.com

_______________________________________________
midcom mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom