On May 31, 2022, at 8:29 AM, Tero Kivinen <kivinen@xxxxxx> wrote:
If that’s the case, then you’re opening up this approach to a much lower bar to attacks. It would be significantly more useful to find a way to resync. I don’t have any particular suggestions there, except maybe when sync is lost to scan for a known byte pattern and try to resync there. If the IPsec then starts to work again, you’re set. If not, you keep scanning. This is the approach ATM used to find cell boundaries. Is there a reason not to include that as a fallback when such attacks are seen as a mitigation to avoid the restart overhead?? Joe |
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
