RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 3 records.

Status: Verified (3)

RFC 2196, "Site Security Handbook", September 1997

Source of RFC: ssh ()

Errata ID: 482

Status: Verified
Type: Editorial

Reported By: IETF Secretariat
Date Reported: 2004-10-13

On page 21, it says:

A firewall is any one of several mechanisms used to control and watch
access to and from a network for the purpose of protecting it.  A
firewall acts as a gateway through which all traffic to and from the
protected network and/or systems passes.  Firewalls help to place
limitations on the amount and type of communication that takes place
between the protected network and the another network (e.g., the
Internet, or another piece of the site's network).

It should say:

A firewall is any one of several mechanisms used to control and watch
access to and from a network for the purpose of protecting it.  A
firewall acts as a gateway through which all traffic to and from the
protected network and/or systems passes.  Firewalls help to place
limitations on the amount and type of communication that takes place
between the protected network and another network (e.g., the
Internet, or another piece of the site's network).

Notes:

removed extraneous "the".

Errata ID: 2167

Status: Verified
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Nikolai Malykh
Date Reported: 2010-04-21
Verifier Name: RFC Editor
Date Verified: 2011-12-01

Section 3.2.3.6 says:

   Some sites choose to co-locate FTP with a Web
   server, since the two protocols share common security considerations
   However, the the practice isn't recommended, especially when the FTP
   service allows the deposit of files (see section on WWW above). 

It should say:

   Some sites choose to co-locate FTP with a Web
   server, since the two protocols share common security considerations.
   However, this practice isn't recommended, especially when the FTP
   service allows the deposit of files (see section on WWW above).

Notes:

added a period after "considerations".

Errata ID: 2674

Status: Verified
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Alexandre Dulaunoy
Date Reported: 2010-12-19
Verifier Name: RFC Editor
Date Verified: 2011-12-01

Section 3.1.1 says:

   The plan should also address how incident will be handled.  Chapter 5
   provides an in-depth discussion of this topic, but it is important
   for each site to define classes of incidents and corresponding
   responses.  For example, sites with firewalls should set a threshold
   on the number of attempts made to foil the firewall before triggering
   a response?  Escallation levels should be defined for both attacks
   and responses.  Sites without firewalls will have to determine if a
   single attempt to connect to a host constitutes an incident? What
   about a systematic scan of systems?

It should say:

   The plan should also address how incident will be handled.  Chapter 5
   provides an in-depth discussion of this topic, but it is important
   for each site to define classes of incidents and corresponding
   responses.  For example, sites with firewalls should set a threshold
   on the number of attempts made to foil the firewall before triggering
   a response?  Escalation levels should be defined for both attacks
   and responses.  Sites without firewalls will have to determine if a
   single attempt to connect to a host constitutes an incident? What
   about a systematic scan of systems?

Notes:

Escallation -> Escalation

Report New Errata



Search RFCs
Advanced Search
×