Subject: [RPSEC] Topic 6: Section 4.1 Deliberate Exposure

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:42:46 -0500 (EST)

I'm confused by the language in the deliberate exposure section.

The text says that deliberate exposure is when the "attackers" release
routing information to routers that are not authorized to access the
routing information.  Presumably these attackers are legitimate
routers (otherwise how did they get access to the info).  The text
seems to excuse a router from releasing routing information to
masqueraders (but only when it has been deceived).  Does that mean
that a router that masquerades and then gets access to routing
information it is not authorized to access is NOT a deliberate
exposure?

The sense of this section is that deliberate exposure is when the
router sends information knowingly to some router (or person, or host,
I would think) that is not supposed to have it.  That's about what
I'd expect the words "deliberate exposure" to mean.

But that leaves uncovered the case where an outsider obtains, by some
means (eavesdropping, spoofing, etc.), access to routing information
it should not have.  Is this not considered a problem?

(BTW: Section 3.2 lists interception as "gains access to routing
information that is considered sensitive".  That seems to fit.
Why is it not included in the Section 4 list of threat actions?)

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

---

From: Tony Tauber <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 15:41:09 -0500 (EST)

I'm confused as well.  The sense I take from "deliberate" is that it's
intentional.  If information is intentionally revealed to parties who
aren't authorized, it would seem to be a malicious act in itself,
perhaps meant to deceive?

Tony

On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 [email-masked] wrote:

> The text says that deliberate exposure is when the "attackers"
> release routing information to routers that are not authorized to
> access the routing information.  Presumably these attackers are
> legitimate routers (otherwise how did they get access to the info).
> The text seems to excuse a router from releasing routing information
> to masqueraders (but only when it has been deceived).  Does that
> mean that a router that masquerades and then gets access to routing
> router sends information knowingly to some router (or person, or
> host, I would think) that is not supposed to have it.  That's about
> what I'd expect the words "deliberate exposure" to mean.
>
> But that leaves uncovered the case where an outsider obtains, by
> some means (eavesdropping, spoofing, etc.), access to routing
> information it should not have.  Is this not considered a problem?
>
> information that is considered sensitive".  That seems to fit.  Why
> is it not included in the Section 4 list of threat actions?)
>
> --Sandy