Subject: RE: [Asrg] Assume perfect knowledge by domain registry provisioners, so what?

From: "Eric D. Williams" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 22:09:39 -0400

On Sunday, May 11, 2003 11:50 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine 
[SMTP:[email-masked]] wrote:
8<...>8
> As a research inquery, are the response times of these two systems capable
> of making one interact (negatively, in case anyone is wondering) with the
> other? Is it possible to construct a covert channel between these two
> distinct communications realms?
...
I think there is always a 'way' to perform such interactions, and a methodology 
to establish a covert channel.  The question would be where and whether that 
channel or other communication would be susceptible to other disruptions (that 
is unless the channel was 'out of band' with other communications).

> Would the question be significantly altered if the registries provisioned
> was defined by decimal values, rather than character sequences, ignoring the
> syntax rules for each data type?

I am not sure I follow that question.  I don't think a character or decimal 
representation would present an issue in the case of an registries system 
independent evaluation of the date set (which is what I think you are 
proposing).  Is that what you mean?

-e
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 03:50:56 -0400

The point of the first question, capability of signalling, is that if impossible,
then the question of whether there is a role for registrars is answered in the
negative, for spam. For spammers (trace), signalling is not an issue.

The point of asking if data types matter, is that one set of registries are
provisioned (allow write access with some authentication and validity check
by multile actors to some authoritative store) with character data typed data
(domain names), another set with decimal data typed data (addresses). Each is
input to distinct publication systems. Differences in the pro formas for each
are not essential, except where they present latency of response, and may be
the root cause for an incapability of signalling.

Clearly each disjoint instance of authority for a publication of a resource
of either type is capable of responding meaningfully to notice of initial
discovery of a source of spam.

Is there any benefit to making it possible for these disjoint instances of
authority to be aware of their responces to notice of initial discovery of
a source of spam?

This is a possible application of something I've been working on.

Eric