On Apr 19, 2012, at 6:31 43PM, Douglas Otis wrote:

> On 4/18/12 8:09 PM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
>> 
>> On Apr 18, 2012, at 5:55 32PM, Douglas Otis wrote:
>> > Dear Jeroen,
>> >
>> > In the work that led up to RFC3309, many of the errors found on the
>> > Internet pertained to single interface bits, and not single data
>> > bits. Working at a large chip manufacturer that removed internal
>> > memory error detection to foolishly save space, cost them dearly in
>> > then needing to do far more exhaustive four corner testing.
>> > Checksums used by TCP and UDP are able to detect single bit data
>> > errors, but may miss as much as 2% of single interface bit errors.
>> > It would be surprising to find memory designs lacking internal
>> > error detection logic.
>> 
>> mallet:~ smb$ head -14 doc/ietf/rfc/rfc3309.txt | sed 1,7d | sed
>> 2,5d; date Request for Comments: 3309
>> Stanford September 2002
>> 
>> Wed Apr 18 23:07:53 EDT 2012
>> 
>> We are not in a static field... (3309 is one of my favorite RFCs --
>> but the specific findings (errors happen more often than you think),
>> as opposed the general lesson (understand your threat model) may be
>> OBE.
> Dear Steve,
> 
> You may be right.  However back then most were also only considering random 
> single bit errors as well.  Although there was plentiful evidence for where 
> errors might be occurring, it seems many worked hard to ignore the clues.
> 
> Reminiscent of a drunk searching for keys dropped in the dark under a light 
> post, mathematics for random single bit errors offer easier calculations and 
> simpler solutions.  While there are indeed fewer parallel buses today, these 
> structures still exist in memory modules and other networking components.  
> Manufactures confront increasingly temperamental bit storage elements, where 
> most include internal error correction to minimize manufacturing and testing 
> costs.  Error sources are not easily ascertained with simple checksums when 
> errors are not random.
> 

Yes -- that's precisely why I like that RFC so much.


                --Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb






Reply via email to