Recursive Internetwork Architecture: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 01:15, 25 March 2017

Revision as of 20:13, 20 May 2017

Line 121:

'''DIFs are securable containers, no firewalls are necessary'''. Small et al.<ref>J. Small, J. Day, L. Chitkushev, “Threat analysis of Recursive Inter-Network Architecture Distributed Inter-Process Communication Facilities”. Boston University Technical Note.</ref> performed a threat analysis at the RINA architecture level, concluding that DIFs are securable containers. That is, if proper authentication, authorization, confidentiality, integrity protection and auditing policies are put in place (as identified in section 2.1) a DIF is a structure used to transport data that can be made to be not subject to threat. No external tools such as firewalls are required.

'''Complexity of RINA security is lower than that of the current Internet security'''. This is a consequence of the different approach to each of the architectures: the system design approach adopted by the RINA architecture, is based on identifying the proper placement of all the functions within the architecture - in contrast to the disorganized evolution of the Internet “protocol-suite” which leads to unnecessary redundancy and complexity. This is particularly evident in comparing the number of protocols and mechanisms required to add security to both RINA and the Internet: Small<ref>J. Small. “Patterns“[https://open.bu.edu/handle/2144/17155 Patterns in Network Security: An analysis of architectural complexity in securing RecrusiveRecursive Inter-Network Architecture Networks”Networks]”. Master thesis, 2012. Boston University Library</ref> showed that the current Internet security had for 4-5 times the overhead of RINA security. Less overhead means not only less cost but also more effective security, since complexity is the worst enemy of security <ref>B. Schneier, “Complexity the worst enemy of Security”. Computer World, December 2012.</ref>

===Other aspects===