Subject: rfc2222bis: confidentiality and integrity

From: [email-masked] (Sam Hartman)
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:15:37 -0400 (EDT)

Hi.  There's another change I thought would be editorial but
apparently is not.  The document currently says in section 1 that
confidentiality protection usually implies integrity protection.

This seems less than ideal from a security standpoint.  I believe that
applications need to be able to depend on the fact that
confidentiality protection comes along with integrity protection.

I propose to drop the word usually.

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 19:42:09 -0500

> confidentiality protection comes along with integrity protection.

If there are any mechanisms that provide confidentiality protection
without providing integrity protection then I propose: a) that
rfc2222bis identify such mechanisms, b) say new mechs MUST NOT do such
Bad Things.

> I propose to drop the word usually.

Yes.

Nico
--

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 22:14:51 -0400

>>>>> "Nicolas" == Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]> writes:

    Nicolas> If there are any mechanisms that provide confidentiality
    Nicolas> protection without providing integrity protection then I
    Nicolas> propose: a) that rfc2222bis identify such mechanisms, b)
    Nicolas> say new mechs MUST NOT do such Bad Things.

I know of no such mechanisms.

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 12:28:27 +0200

I support this suggestion.  The subsequent sentence is sufficent
to suggest other kinds (including poorly designed :-) layers
may be supported.

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 19:42:09 -0500

Yes.

Nico
--

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 22:14:51 -0400

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 12:28:27 +0200