Security for the DoD Transmission Control Protocol

  • Whitfield Diffie
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 218)


In securing packet switched digital communications, it is possible to add the security measures at almost any layer of the Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) model of network functioning. At one extreme, security may be supplied either by physical protection of the communication links (with no impact at all on network communication protocols) or by independent encryption of the traffic on each link of the network (with little protocol impact). Solutions or this sort are called link security and, although widely employed, have the disadvantage of requiring the users to place a high degree of trust in the network. At the other extreme, it is possible, using cryptography, to add security to each individual user level application. This has the advantage of minimizing the user’s need to trust the network and thus providing end-to-end security, but also has the disadvantage of requiring a multiplicity of implementations.


Sequence Number Transmission Control Protocol Cipher Block Transport Layer Security Layer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. [1]
    D. L. Chaum, “Untraceable Electronic Mail, Return Addresses, and Digital Pseudonyms,” Communications of the ACM, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 84–88, February 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Whitfield Diffie, “Conventional Versus Public Key Cryptosystems,” in Secure Communiations and Asymetric Cryptosystems, Edited by Gustavus J. Simmons, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, 1982.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    “DoD Standard, Internet Protocol,” Information Sciences Institute, University of Southern California, Marina del Rey, California, RFC 791, September 1981.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    “DoD Standard, Transmission Control Protocol,” Information Sciences Institute, University of Southern California, Marina del Rey, California, RFC 793, September 1981.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Steven T. Kent, “Some Thoughts on TCP and Communication Security,” MIT, Laboratory for Computer Science, Local Network Note, No. 6, 4 May 1977.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    “Modes of Operation for the Data Encryption Standard,” National Bureau of Standards, Federal Information Processing Standards Publication 81, 1980.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Whitfield Diffie
    • 1
  1. 1.Bell-Northern ResearchMountain View

Personalised recommendations