From: Marc Horowitz <marc@cam.ov.com>
To: perry@imsi.com
Message Hash: c1478c1b51a2a3951d12e43d243eab7f58e52e70eeb02bc9c766cb35613c874b
Message ID: <9501270011.AA07672@dun-dun-noodles.cam.ov.com>
Reply To: <9501270006.AA17831@snark.imsi.com>
UTC Datetime: 1995-01-27 00:09:05 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 26 Jan 95 16:09:05 PST
From: Marc Horowitz <marc@cam.ov.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 95 16:09:05 PST
To: perry@imsi.com
Subject: Re: CERT statement
In-Reply-To: <9501270006.AA17831@snark.imsi.com>
Message-ID: <9501270011.AA07672@dun-dun-noodles.cam.ov.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
>> Kerberos per se isn't sufficient to defend against session hijacking
>> attacks, you know. The situation in question is really insidious and
>> requires packet-by-packet cryptographic authentication.
No, but kerberos or something like it is necessary. And I think I can
safely say that anything which really defends against TCP sequence
spoofing or hijacking attacks will be more invasive and require more
effort than kerberos, not less.
Marc
Return to January 1995
Return to “Thomas Grant Edwards <tedwards@src.umd.edu>”