- From: J.P. Martin-Flatin <martin-flatin@epfl.ch>
- Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 19:13:43 +0200
- To: Jim Gettys <jg@pa.dec.com>
- Cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
On Mon, 15 Jun 1998 09:48:50 -0700, Jim Gettys wrote: > > > Section 8.1.1 may come across as slightly biaised, because it lists > > only advantages of persistent connections. In practice, these are > > balanced by drawbacks. For instance, if the timeout value of > > persistent connections is larger than the TCP connection timeout, > > denial-of-service attacks are more effective: by using up all possible > > connections, a malicious user can prevent access to a targeted server > > for a longer period of time. Perhaps a quick mention of this issue > > would make sense in section 8.1.4 (Practical Considerations)? > > The denial of service attack is the same between persistent connections > and non-persistent connections. I can see no difference between the > two situations; the attacker does exactly the same thing in either case, > with the same result. Presumably, the timeout of persistent connections will be longer than the TCP connection timeout (that is, the recommended time to maintain TCP TIME_WAIT state, generally 4 minutes). So even though the technique used for the attack is the same, the effect will be amplified in the case of persistent connections with long timeouts. > In general, denial of service attacks are very difficult to deal with. Agreed. Jean-Philippe Martin-Flatin
Received on Tuesday, 16 June 1998 09:21:16 UTC