4 ms·
The way I read your argument, it relies on denying access to be cheaper or simpler than spoofing (X == spoofing, Y == denying access to authoritative NS): You
by robryk 10y ago
The way I read your argument, it relies on denying access to be cheaper or simpler than spoofing (X == spoofing, Y == denying access to authoritative NS):
You are arguing that a kind of attacks is made more dangerous, because in the world with that change an attacker can not only (a) keep performing attack X, but can also (b) perform attack X and then keep performing Y. If Y is in no way simpler for the attacker why would an attacker choose (b)? S/he can get the same result using (a) in that world or in our world.
Am I misreading you or missing some other important property of these two attack variants?
- Kalium 10y agoI believe you may have failed to consider the important role played by reliability. X cannot always be done reliably - it usually relies on timing. Y, as we've seen, can be done with some degree of reliability. Combining them, in the wished-for world, creates a more reliable exploit environment because the spoofed records will not expire. The result is more attacks that persist longer and are more likely to reach their targets. Such a world is certain to not be better than this one and likely to be worse.
- robryk 10y agoIndeed I didn't consider that. Thanks a lot for being patient and enlightening.