Subject: [eap] Proposed Resolution to Issue 163: Minor Editorial Nit

From: [email-masked] (Bernard Aboba)
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 13:17:29 -0700 (PDT)

The text of issue 163 is enclosed below.  The recommendation is that the
proposed change be accepted.  Any objections?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 163: Minor Editorial Nit
Submitter name: Lauri Tarkkala
Submitter email address: [email-masked]
Date first submitted: July 21, 2003
Reference:
http://mail.frascone.com/pipermail/public/eap/2003-July/001508.html
Document: EAP-04
Comment type: E
Priority: 2
Section:  2.1
Rationale/Explanation of issue:
Third paragraph in Section 2.1 states

"A peer MUST NOT send a Nak (legacy or expanded) in reply to a
Request, after an initial non-Nak Response has been sent.  Since
spoofed EAP Request packets may be sent by an attacker, an
authenticator receiving an unexpected Nak SHOULD silently
discard it and log the event."

and in Section 1.2 we have the definition of silently discard:

"This means the implementation discards the packet
without further processing.  The implementation
SHOULD provide the capability of logging the
event, including the contents of the silently discarded packet,
and SHOULD record the event in a statistics counter."

Recommended change:

In section 2.1 change the third paragraph quoted above to
read:

"A peer MUST NOT send a Nak (legacy or expanded) in reply to a
Request, after an initial non-Nak Response has been sent.  Since
spoofed EAP Request packets may be sent by an attacker, an
authenticator receiving an unexpected NAK SHOULD
discard it and log the event."

(e.g. remove the "silently", at first read I found this
a bit confusing).

---

From: [email-masked] (John Vollbrecht)
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 11:30:06 -0400

good with me - John

--On Saturday, August 2, 2003 1:17 PM -0700 Bernard Aboba 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> eap mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/eap