RE: [security-services] Minuets of Discussion at 12 noon, Februar y 1

[Polar Humenn <polar@syr.edu>]

On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:

>
> If we are to get really ansy about this 61 is actually a valid value for
> seconds. Leap seconds are introduced about once a decade or so.

Ah, more often then you think.  Leap Seconds happen every 1 to 2 years. 23
have been made since 1972. And there is never a 61.

From NIST:

All leap seconds listed in the table are positive leap seconds, which
means an extra second is inserted into the UTC time scale.  The sequence
of events is:

    23h 59m 59s - 23h 59m 60s - 00h 00m 00s

Note: No positive leap second will be introduced at the end of June 2002.

Leap Seconds Inserted into the UTC Time Scale

  Date
 1998-12-31
 1997-06-30
 1995-12-31
 1994-06-30
 1993-06-30
 1992-06-30
 1990-12-31
 1989-12-31
 1987-12-31
 1985-06-30
 1983-06-30
 1982-06-30
 1981-06-30
 1979-12-31
 1978-12-31
 1977-12-31
 1976-12-31
 1975-12-31
 1974-12-31
 1973-12-31
 1972-12-31
 1972-06-30

-Polar

>
> The problem with the X.509 approach is that you can actually end up with
> a hole in the cert coverage over the leap second. That is not a biggie
> in the X.509 framework since you then don't trust the cert for a second.
>
> However that type of thing could be a major problem with an attribute
> assertion which might well have blocking semantics so a DoS would be
> significant.
>
> 		Phill
>
>
>
> Phillip Hallam-Baker FBCS C.Eng.
> Principal Scientist
> VeriSign Inc.
> pbaker@verisign.com
> 781 245 6996 x227
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie]
> > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 7:33 AM
> > To: Mishra, Prateek
> > Cc: 'security-services@lists.oasis-open.org'; 'joe_pato@hp.com'
> > Subject: Re: [security-services] Minuets of Discussion at 12 noon,
> > February 1
> >
> >
> >
> > Folks,
> >
> > Notes from Friday's call look good.
> >
> > >   (4) Time Issue:
> >
> > Just FYI for whoever's writing up the relevant text, here's [1]
> > a useful internet draft, with some background and describing
> > some of the relevant issues. Probably not something we want to
> > reference at this stage (its up for IESG review, so some months
> > from being an rfc probably).
> >
> > Note that saying "add one second" (if we do) could be error
> > prone, though in reality probably only in the presence of an
> > attack, since according to this draft you could get a value
> > of "61" that way;-)
> >
> > Stephen.
> >
> > [1]
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-impp-datetime-05.txt
> >
> >
> > --
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > Stephen Farrell
> > Baltimore Technologies,   tel: (direct line) +353 1 881 6716
> > 39 Parkgate Street,                     fax: +353 1 881 7000
> > Dublin 8.                mailto:stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie
> > Ireland                             http://www.baltimore.com
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> > manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
> >
>
>