Security Considerations

   This section is addressed to implementers and enumerates specific
   security related considerations in the deployment of IFEX based
   systems.  Obviously, it is nonexhaustive; in addition to the points
   enumerated below standard computer security measures MUST be
   employed, or an insecure system is likely to result.

 Transport Selection
    Implementers should consider whether they need their transport to
   be resistant to traffic analysis.

   As a transport neutral protocol, careful transport selection for IFEX
   deployments is critical to implementation security.

   From a security standpoint, potential transports SHOULD be evaluated
   on at least the following criteria.

 Traffic Analysis Considerations
   Two primary techniques appear to be employed to frustrate traffic
   analysis: indirect routing, and chaffing and winnowing.  (The latter
   by liberal definition includes the relatively well known field of
   steganography as a subset.)


   If the transport in use provides adequate authentication (for instance,
   some kind of secure physical link layer) then transaction overheads
   can be reduced at the IFEX message level.  Such configurations MAY be
   attractive for certain classes of deployment, for example low latency
   environments such as High Frequency Trading (HFT) systems.


   If the deployment environment includes adequate non-repudiation (for
   instance, internal systems within a single organization where
   adequate audit trails are known to exist and a secure physical link
   layer is in use), then transaction overheads MAY be reduced at the
   IFEX message level.  Such configurations MAY be attractive for
   certain classes of deployment, for example low latency environments
   such as High Frequency Trading (HFT) systems.



  Protocol-Level Considerations

   Intrasecond Transaction Identifier (ISTI)
   To avoid disclosure of ledger transaction frequency, the Financial
   Transaction Identifier (FTID) Intrasecond Transaction Identifier (IS-
   FTID) portion SHOULD be assigned pseudorandomly rather than

  By Attack Vector

   Resource Exhaustion
   Due to the requirement for parties within IFEX to consider and
   maintain state regarding financial transactions, it is prudent to
   consider the potential threat of storage and processing resource
   exhuastion due to deliberate malice (as in Denial of Service
   attacks), node misbehavior and other circumstances.

   Whilst overall financial transaction state differs in that in IFEX's
   case it is maintained in a non node-local fashion, in broad terms
   IFEX adopts a view similar to that of [SMTP].  That is, at any given
   time one particular node MAY be considered to be primarily
   responsible for expected transaction state transition.

   Maximum Message Sizes
   IFEX purposefully excludes fixed size limits on message structures.
   Implementers should carefully consider their bandwidth and processing
   resources when determining the boundaries for acceptable messages.

   Traffic Analysis
   While traffic analysis threats are not unique to IFEX, implementors
   MUST be aware that traffic analysis MAY reveal significant amounts of
   sensitive financial information; implementers SHOULD select transport
   strategies with this information in mind.

    Latency / Timing Analysis
    In some cases, the outcome of a system's IFEX transaction MAY be
    possible to determine purely by analyzing the latency between the
    transaction request and response components of a suspected

    Destination Analysis
    Traffic analysis MAY reveal with which remote party or parties
    suspected IFEX transactions are being performed.