Re: [Anima] I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima-grasp-13.txt - SONN
William Atwood <william.atwood@concordia.ca> Thu, 08 June 2017 20:03 UTC
Return-Path: <william.atwood@concordia.ca>
X-Original-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB7BC12778E for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Jun 2017 13:03:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.536
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.536 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] 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 kDERENSOadlF for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Jun 2017 13:03:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oldperseverance.encs.concordia.ca (oldperseverance.encs.concordia.ca [132.205.96.92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03B371242F5 for <anima@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Jun 2017 13:03:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (bill@poise.encs.concordia.ca [132.205.2.209]) by oldperseverance.encs.concordia.ca (envelope-from william.atwood@concordia.ca) (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id v58K3V3I005385; Thu, 8 Jun 2017 16:03:31 -0400
To: anima@ietf.org, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
References: <149669625424.3230.10151704455578829166@ietfa.amsl.com> <f829bda3-d4f5-014d-8ffd-e63537171ba6@gmail.com> <20170606232417.GJ12427@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <15560.1496872540@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <20170607225624.GF20021@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <16530.1496889369@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <20170608182523.GH20021@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
From: William Atwood <william.atwood@concordia.ca>
Organization: Concordia University, Montreal
Message-ID: <278e5e7f-5b09-f886-2fcb-25cd597c6ca6@concordia.ca>
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2017 16:03:32 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170608182523.GH20021@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.58 on oldperseverance.encs.concordia.ca at 2017-06-08 16:03:31 EDT
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/34lvF3QT36ETyrohtGkJwnufpsw>
Subject: Re: [Anima] I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima-grasp-13.txt - SONN
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <anima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/anima/>
List-Post: <mailto:anima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2017 20:03:40 -0000
Toerless, The idea to extend IKEv2 for "wider scope" negotiation can certainly be seen in the KARP documents. In this case: 1) for unicast negotiation, the protocols being keyed include IPsec and TCP-AO 2) for multicast negotiation, the base model was GDOI (adapted to IKEv2), but an election procedure was added The addition is because GDOI's administratively-assigned group controller/key server was not suitable for a negotiation whose scope was a single network segment. KARP needed something that would work on its own. Sounds as if "autonomic" would be a good descriptor for this case... Unfortunately, these two documents never made it past the "draft-author" stage. However, they were well-enough defined that I have a student who has formally validated some of their security properties. documents (all four that I believe are pertinent): draft-mahesh-karp-rkmp draft-hartman-karp-mrkmp draft-yeung-g-ikev2 draft-chunduri-karp-using-ikev2-with-tcp-ao Bill On 08/06/2017 2:25 PM, Toerless Eckert wrote: > Thanks, Michael: > > Any examples of how IKEv2 is used to negotiate other non-IPsec protocols ? > > [ I have not found examples describing the use of IKE(v2) for dissimilar > crypto associations outside of IPsec, except for maybe RFC4595. If i > wanted for example to negotiate between 802.1ae or IPsec, i wonder what > amount of trouble/work that would be to define that as an IKEv2 extension > vs. defining this just as a GRASP negotiation in TLS. ] > > Yes, we just made up TLS, and yes, if we can't come to a conclusion that > IKEv2 is not the most feasible approach (see above for my concerns), > TLS may potentially also not be the most widely accepted transport given the > constrained IoT worlds preference to use CoAP/dTLS if i am not mistaken. > > In any case this discussion seems to point to need to take the more intelligent > negotiation out of the ACP document into a separate draft where we can continue to > ponder and decide on the best option. Right ? > > Eg: Maybe a "lightweight heterogenous security association negotiation mechanism" > would have to be GRASP/CoAP/dTLS. and the negotiation functions should > defintely be able to argue how they did inherit or differ from IKEv2. > > In the end this may simple be a more strategic modularization direction, > to reuse evolving building blocks eg: IKEv2 was built as a silo when there > where no widely adopted initial security association protocols like TLS/dTLS. > And the message formats used in IKEv2 where predating evolving industry > preferences over a reuse of request/response exchange standards such as those > of HTTP/CoAP/(hopefully GRASP) or encoding rules such as those of XML or JSON/CBOR. > > If using IKEv2 to negotiate into eg: 802.1ae would be easier and make > adoption easier, i'd be all for it. Past experience just makes me think this > to be less likely. > > Wrt to IP in dTLS: > > This would of course only be a candidate ACP channel. For negotiation we would not > need IP, it would just be GRASP/(d)TLS or GRASP/CoAP/dTLS. > > We had the argument in Chigaco or before whether it would be necessary to have a > 1 paragraph separate document to state that IP packets can be carried in dTLS, > and i thought we did in the meeting come to the conclusion that that was not > necessary. But that may have been premature. I was looking at: > draft-mavrogiannopoulos-openconnect-00. That certainly is mostly complexity > because it combines TLS for connection negotiation and dTLS for the data. > Gee, i wonder why they didn't use IKEv2 ;-)) > > Nevertheless: Would be interesting to find the most simple RFC example of > an application protocol that just uses dTLS to have an example of what dTLS > parameters one would need to specify. > > (i assume OpenVPN is just an implementation of openconnect mechanism, right ?, > i have not used it myself but just linux openconnect and Cisco Anyconnect) > > Btw: Eric recommended to take a look at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dprive-dtls-and-tls-profiles-09 as a recent example how to specify security profiles for (d)TLS. > > Cheers > toerless > > On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 10:36:09PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote: >> >> Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> wrote: >> > So, in some near term future, ANI/ACP is so successfully that we >> > have four possible ACP channel protocols: IPsec, IPsec/GRE, dTLS and >> > 802.1ae >> >> That's only three, btw. >> And the answer is that you'd use IKEv2 to negotiate which one of them to use, >> because IKEv2 was designed *SPECIFICALLY* to do this kind of thing. >> >> > a) We need a security association before we negotiate so the negotiation does >> > not become an attack vector. Solution: We build a a TLS connection >> >> You just assumed TLS. >> If you can assume TLS, I can assume IKEv2, and save a lot more code, and >> pages less >> >> And you have to assume TLS 1.3 (so you need new code and new libraries on >> every device). The process will still be suspectible to trivial TCP RST >> attacks. So please add some security for that part too! >> >> >> >> 2) We have no meaningful specification for IP over *TLS thing. >> >> (but that, I mean a deployed protocol with an RFC and widespread >> >> implementation.) >> >> > The negotiation is just GRASP inside TLS. No IP needed. >> >> I'm talking about the "dTLS" option above you just named. >> What is it? "IP in DTLS" isn't anywhere near enough. >> Why not add OpenVPN to the list too? >> At least it has widely used, extensively tested reference code, even if it >> has no public specification. >> >> Some developer in Mumbai will still have no idea what that means. >> Is there an IXIA or SPIRENT module so that I can test it at 10G? or 100G? >> That's a serious objection: you can't just make stuff up like that. >> >> >> 3) I have been trying to understand the MACsec KMP, as some would like to run >> >> the ACP over MACsec. I originally was led to believe that there was no >> >> KMP, but after finding the full specifications, it's clear that there is >> >> support for PSK and other things and even IDevID are mentioned. >> >> I'd still like to suggest that we negotiate the use of MACsec (or of some >> >> yet-to-be-well-defined IP over TLS) via IKEv2. It's not at all hard, and >> >> if IKEv2 is the MTI, then we need it implemented anyway. An IKEv2 minimal >> >> implementation can be very small; lwig has some good advice, but it >> >> assumes initiator only, and we need both. >> >> >> >> I can not see a purpose for SONN, and I do not think we can do a proper >> >> security analysis, and it forces TLS to be MTI. SONN will therefore add >> >> a significant (3-5 pages) of text on how to use TLS properly. >> >> > Would be great if you could point me to some example RFC where something like >> > this ("how to use TLS appropriately") is done! >> >> I think that the Opportunistic Security specification, https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7435 >> tried to do this. I'm not a TLS guy, so go ask one of them. >> >> -- >> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works >> -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- >> > > _______________________________________________ > Anima mailing list > Anima@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima > -- Dr. J.W. Atwood, Eng. tel: +1 (514) 848-2424 x3046 Distinguished Professor Emeritus fax: +1 (514) 848-2830 Department of Computer Science and Software Engineering Concordia University EV 3.185 email:william.atwood@concordia.ca 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West http://users.encs.concordia.ca/~bill Montreal, Quebec Canada H3G 1M8
- [Anima] I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima-grasp-13.txt internet-drafts
- Re: [Anima] I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima-grasp-13… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Anima] I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima-grasp-13… Max Pritikin (pritikin)
- Re: [Anima] I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima-grasp-13… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Anima] I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima-grasp-13… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [Anima] I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima-grasp-13… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [Anima] I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima-grasp-13… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [Anima] I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima-grasp-13… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Anima] I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima-grasp-13… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [Anima] I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima-grasp-13… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Anima] I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima-grasp-13… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [Anima] I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima-grasp-13… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Anima] I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima-grasp-13… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Anima] I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima-grasp-13… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Anima] I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima-grasp-13… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [Anima] I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima-grasp-13… William Atwood
- Re: [Anima] I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima-grasp-13… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Anima] I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima-grasp-13… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Anima] I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima-grasp-13… Uma Chunduri
- [Anima] ACP [was I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima-gra… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Anima] ACP [was I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Anima] ACP [was I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Anima] ACP [was I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Anima] ACP [was I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima… Brian E Carpenter