Subject: RE: Security Use Requirements

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 11:24:50 -0500 (EST)

John asks:
> That 
> is, it could be acceptable to have a gateway box included in the must
> implement.

how would this deal with the case where the "gateway box" is built into 
a device? (i.e. no seperate gateway box)

Scott

---

From: "Douglas Otis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:17:38 -0800

Scott,

If there is 'required to implement' security that is later found compromised
by a man in the middle or through a spoofing mechanism, would such a mandate
in the end ensure an open door for those familiar with this 'required to
provide' security weakness?  Could you recommend a security scheme that is
safe from this type of attack?

Could security mandates be limited to user authentication and authorization?
Compression-Encryptions passes are computationally expensive processes that
offer little benefit in many configurations.  If there is a mandated
security, cryptographic resources should be limited to authentication.  Yes,
I understand the present thinking is to have the SCSI device report
authorization.  This brings up the question, how does the SCSI device know
and what scheme is it using.  It would seem foolish to insist on a security
mandate than then level such a major hole in allowing security management.

Doug