Subject: Re: [Isms] Working Group Last Call - securityLevel changes

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:14:58 +0200

On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 09:05:28AM +0200, tom.petch wrote:

> Just to be more specific, I am suggesting adding wording to tmsm,
> either what we have in secshell, that security level of the
> transport SHOULD NOT be changed, or, if that is too restrictive in
> the architecture, as opposed to a model, then a warning that a
> change in security level could lead to a security exposure since the
> security subsystem may not have access to information relevant to
> the message it is processing.

To me, this sounds reasonable. Tom, can you draft some concrete text?
I would probably go with the warning but I have no strong feeling
about this. I guess we need to see the concrete text.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

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