netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/7] tou: Transports over UDP

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <loom.20160526T174601-63@post.gmane.org>
Date:	Thu, 26 May 2016 15:49:42 +0000 (UTC)
From:	Alex Elsayed <eternaleye@...il.com>
To:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/7] tou: Transports over UDP - part I

Tom Herbert <tom <at> herbertland.com> writes:

> 
> Transports over UDP is intended to encapsulate TCP and other transport
> protocols directly and securely in UDP.
> 
> The goal of this work is twofold:
> 
> 1) Allow applications to run their own transport layer stack (i.e.from
>    userspace). This eliminates dependencies on the OS (e.g. solves a
>    major dependency issue for Facebook on clients).
> 
> 2) Make transport layer headers (all of L4) invisible to the network
>    so that they can't do intrusive actions at L4. This will be enforced
>    with DTLS in use.

Just popping in to note that this has significant similarities with the
DeDiS group's Tng project[1], which takes the approach of splitting the
"transport layer" into four sub-layers:

1.) Endpoint (What port?)
2.) Flow (Congestion control)
3.) Isolation (Integrity, confidentiality, and preventing middlebox mangling)
4.) Semantic (End-to-end guarantees, fate-sharing, stream vs. dgram vs.
seqpacket, etc)

[1] http://dedis.cs.yale.edu/2009/tng/