mnt-nfy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
davidk at isi.edu
davidk at isi.edu
Fri Oct 18 19:39:25 CEST 1996
Hi Janos, > Janos Zsako writes : > > > Note also that this smartness quite consciously introduces less > > 'security' because it allows someone to make clandestine changes by > > forging his From:-address to avoid notification. We did this because > > those with really high security requirements shoud use maintainers with > > a stronger authentication menthod. > > Correct. However I originally noticed that this "feature" also works by > adding a Reply-to: in the header... The feature only disallows sending an ACK & notify message to the same E-mail address. You will always get at least an ACK message. The ACK message is sent to the Reply-To: address or the From: address if no Reply-To: address is present. The notify: message is send to all people listed except for the people that already got an ACK message. > My point at the RIPE meeting was that when sending an update with a Reply-to, > the mnt-nfy DOES get a "warning" message, that somebody made SOME updates, > (since the "Congratulations" are sent to her), but has no clue wrt. WHAT > exactly has been modified (usually the Subject: line does not provide accurate > information - if at all)... This is true. You will receive less information then with a notification message in this case. This is clearly a disadvantage, but also an advantage for those people that are getting a bit tired of the amount of mails coming from the RIPE database automatic department. > (Of course, the situation can be even worse if the From: line is forged...) But you will always get at least one message from the database whether it is an ACK message or a notify message. The smartness only eliminates more mails sent to one and the same E-mail address. And again <ripe-dbm at ripe.net> is always willing to investigate with the maillogs if you suspect someting like this (in fact I *did* found a forgery once and I can assure you that the person that did it will not do it another time ...) > PS. I suppose (and strongly hope :)) the authentication is based on the From: > and not the Reply-to:. I can tell you from first hand experience (that is the code is implemented as required in the specs) that the authentication is done on the From: field and nothing else then that. David K. ---
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]