Return-Path: <owner-ips-outgoing@ece.cmu.edu>
X-Sieve: cmu-sieve 2.0
Return-Path: <owner-ips-outgoing@ece.cmu.edu>
Received: from hazard.ece.cmu.edu (HAZARD.ECE.CMU.EDU [128.2.129.24])
	by ece.cmu.edu (8.11.0/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h5PM8L413766
	for <ipsml@ece.cmu.edu>; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 18:08:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by hazard.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix, from userid 953)
	id 1B4AB8B; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 18:08:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sos.ece.cmu.edu (SOS.ECE.CMU.EDU [128.2.129.27])
	by hazard.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 98C6670; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 18:08:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sos.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix)
	id 285B689F9; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 18:07:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from osgood.ece.cmu.edu (OSGOOD.ECE.CMU.EDU [128.2.129.25])
	by sos.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CBEE89F7
	for <ips-outgoing@sos.ece.cmu.edu>; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 18:07:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by osgood.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix)
	id ED467DE; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 18:07:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by osgood.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix, from userid 953)
	id 956FE115; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 18:07:53 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sos.ece.cmu.edu (SOS.ECE.CMU.EDU [128.2.129.27])
	by osgood.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 664F1DE
	for <ips-outgoing@ece.cmu.edu>; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 18:07:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sos.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix, from userid 363)
	id 5092A89FE; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 18:07:50 -0400 (EDT)
X-Original-To: ips@sos.ece.cmu.edu
Received: from bache.ece.cmu.edu (BACHE.ECE.CMU.EDU [128.2.129.23])
	by sos.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B122A89F7
	for <ips@sos.ece.cmu.edu>; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 18:07:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by bache.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix)
	id 8E4C688; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 18:07:48 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
Received: by bache.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix, from userid 953)
	id 114EC98; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 18:07:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from hotmail.com (bay7-f24.bay7.hotmail.com [64.4.11.24])
	by bache.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CE0F88
	for <ips@ece.cmu.edu>; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 18:07:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
	 Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:07:21 -0700
Received: from 65.82.133.60 by by7fd.bay7.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP;
	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 22:07:21 GMT
X-Originating-IP: [65.82.133.60]
X-Originating-Email: [bernard_aboba@hotmail.com]
From: "Bernard Aboba" <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: mbakke@cisco.com, Black_David@emc.com
Cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: iSCSI User Auth MIB - security issue
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:07:21 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <BAY7-F24vLVKi3s1wsX000005b2@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Jun 2003 22:07:21.0841 (UTC) FILETIME=[26B20610:01C33B66]
Sender: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
Precedence: bulk
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.8 required=5.0
	tests=BAYES_10
	version=2.50
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.50 (1.173-2003-02-20-exp)

>So in most cases, we would not likely lose anything
>by removing these two objects, since if we are using RADIUS,
>the iSCSI/FCIP/etc entity would not know or be able to
>configure the secrets.

Out of curiosity -- how would the authorization be accomplished if RADIUS is 
used?  Wouldn't a similar problem exist?

_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail