Conversation
Co-authored-by: Dave Thaler <dthaler1968@gmail.com>
|
|
||
| While protocol features, extensions, and versions all have legitimate uses, they | ||
| can become a burden when used to excess. For example, the ability to send | ||
| protocol grease that a peer is required to ignore can be abused to cause it to |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe explain some examples of the abuse — not just the fact of ignoring one greased object, but having a flood of them that are all ignored, etc.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thought: There is a "cost" when the greasing creates state, even if only to ignore the greased value. (I can think of cases where seeing a new value needs the receiver to do work to ignore. )
|
We could also have some positive advice earlier to generators of great to say "don't grease too much" |
|
Discussion in the room was: split the text across the sections, which I'll do on this PR so its not ready to be merged yet |
| expend additional processing time. Insufficient monitoring or logging exposes | ||
| endpoints to a risk of denial-of-service attacks. Therefore, it is recommended |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So does excess logging. If greasing causes log entries, then a possible DOS attack would be to fill up the log (consuming storage space or BW).
But to me the sentence "Insufficient monitoring or logging exposes endpoints to a risk of denial-of-service attacks."
is hard to understand. How does it expose endpoints to a risk of DOS attacks? I think it just means DOS attacks go unnoticed, not that it exposes them in the first place, no?
4 participants
Fixes #22