IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ace] Update of access rights

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 05 May 2020 16:01 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: ace@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ace@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7A2A3A0854 for <ace@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 May 2020 09:01:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rgh_PkE3j2ts for <ace@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 May 2020 09:01:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E8CF3A085E for <ace@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 May 2020 09:01:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7206D3818F; Tue, 5 May 2020 11:59:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2C9D4660; Tue, 5 May 2020 12:01:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Ace Wg <ace@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <8063D003-2C48-4157-B80E-B7AF3D2099FC@ericsson.com>
References: <8063D003-2C48-4157-B80E-B7AF3D2099FC@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 25.1.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 05 May 2020 12:01:02 -0400
Message-ID: <20680.1588694462@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ace/oOQBpxEgJ_a4rsJqyBmGYi8HBuM>
Subject: Re: [Ace] Update of access rights
X-BeenThere: ace@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments \(ace\)" <ace.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ace>, <mailto:ace-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ace/>
List-Post: <mailto:ace@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ace-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace>, <mailto:ace-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 May 2020 16:01:06 -0000

Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
    > 7. Client wants to update its access rights: retrieves T2 from AS. Note
    > that this T2 has different authorization info, but does not contain
    > input keying material ("osc"), only a reference to identify Sec1 ("kid"

Is there an assumption that the access rights(T2) >= access rights(T1)?

    > Moreover, while comparing with DTLS profile, we realized there is no
    > reason for which 8. should be sent unprotected. In fact, doing so opens
    > up to possible attacks where an old update (token non expired) is
    > re-injected to the RS by an adversary:

I agree and I see your point.
Thank you for explaining it so well.

My question is whether step 8 results in Sec Ctx sec1 being deleted?
Could Client want to keep it alive in the case that T1 and T2 actually do
different things?

-- 
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email