RE: iSCSI padding should be 0

[Sanjay Goyal <sanjay_goyal@ivivity.com>]

Hi Mark
 What are those "minor security purposes", would you please elaborate that.

Sanjay G

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Bakke [mailto:mbakke@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 5:15 PM
To: Rod Harrison
Cc: eddy_quicksall@ivivity.com; 'Julian Satran'; 'ips'
Subject: Re: iSCSI padding should be 0


Rod-

The pad bytes are set to zero, rather than just sending whatever
data is there, for minor security purposes.

The pad bytes are included in the digest to simplify the hardware.

I suggest we leave this as is.

--
Mark

Rod Harrison wrote:
> 
>         Can we not leave the pad bytes out of the digest
> calculation and allow them to be any value. Having to zero
> the pad bytes is the only reason to touch the payload
> buffer. Is it really a security problem to allow the pad
> bytes to be any value?
> 
>         - Rod
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On
> Behalf Of
> Eddy Quicksall
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 11:24 AM
> To: 'Julian Satran'
> Cc: 'ips'
> Subject: RE: iSCSI padding should be 0
> 
> Sounds good to me.
> 
> Eddy
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julian Satran [mailto:Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 11:46 AM
> To: eddy_quicksall@ivivity.com
> Cc: ips
> Subject: Re: iSCSI padding should be 0
> 
> Perhaps we should say MUST be sent as 0 and keep quiet about
> what the
> receiver should  do (check for 0 - we don't want that).
> 
> Thanks,Julo
> 
> "Eddy Quicksall" <eddy_quicksall@ivivity.com> on 27-07-2001
> 18:18:33
> 
> Please respond to eddy_quicksall@ivivity.com
> 
> To:   Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, ips@ece.cmu.edu
> cc:
> Subject:  iSCSI padding should be 0
> 
> Julian,
> 
> Section 2.1 says the padding should be 0. I guess that is
> correct because
> one may not use CRC and therefore may not want to set them
> to 0. Wouldn't
> it
> be better if section 2.1 was more specific and mentioned
> when they must be
> 0
> if there is a CRC. Also, I noticed at the UNH plug fest that
> at least one
> person thought "should" meant "must". Therefore, I don't
> think it should
> say
> "should" ... I think it should not mention the 0'ness unless
> there is a CRC
> present.
> 
> Also,
> 
>         transmission.  Padding bytes, when presents in a
> segment covered by
> a
>         CRC, have to be set to 0 and are included in the
> CRC.
> 
> should say "when present in".
> 
> Eddy_Quicksall@iVivity.com

-- 
Mark A. Bakke
Cisco Systems
mbakke@cisco.com
763.398.1054