Re: Issue 9.2) <steal-lock>

[William Caban <william@hpcf.upr.edu>]

On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 20:09, Andy Bierman wrote:
> Is there a need for the <steal-lock> operation?
> 
> Attacker can open a session and quickly grab a lock; 
> kill-session followed by lock may not be fast enough 
> to stop the attack, so steal-lock is needed.
> Need to steal the lock and kill the session in one 
> operation or the session will not know the lock was stolen.
What about an attacker issuing the <steal-lock>? Isn't this still being
a DoS possibility? I understand the <steal-lock> operation but I'm not
sure it will solve what we are trying to resolve. I might be confuse but
I can't see the advantage of having this as an operation to try to stop
attacks. I see it useful for when the admin has an open session from one
machine and then happens to be somewhere else and need to do some
reconfiguration, issuing a <steal-lock> will help him a lot. But in the
attacker scenario I still don't see useful.

-W

(BTW, aren't Issue 9.2 and 13.14 the same?)

-- 
William Caban <william@hpcf.upr.edu>


--
to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>