IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [babel] What's up with HNCP security?

Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr> Mon, 29 May 2017 14:02 UTC

Return-Path: <jch@irif.fr>
X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05A5F1293E3; Mon, 29 May 2017 07:02:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-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 v8oHNIjRsBoz; Mon, 29 May 2017 07:02:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE2C91201FA; Mon, 29 May 2017 07:02:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/56228) with ESMTP id v4TE2fYE027743; Mon, 29 May 2017 16:02:41 +0200
Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CD47EB2C1; Mon, 29 May 2017 16:02:41 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr
Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id sSfsY30bf57y; Mon, 29 May 2017 16:02:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from trurl.irif.fr (unknown [78.194.40.74]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C7BDBEB2CD; Mon, 29 May 2017 16:02:37 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 16:02:37 +0200
Message-ID: <87inkjoj5u.wl-jch@irif.fr>
From: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Cc: Markus Stenberg <markus.stenberg@iki.fi>, homenet-babel-sec@ietf.org, babel@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <EE254C72-2E3C-4316-B0A0-9B9133E2F3C6@fugue.com>
References: <87d1ask7d9.wl-jch@irif.fr> <B67775FF-31CB-42F6-ABDF-BD47BEA1DB56@iki.fi> <1F8BA8E0-7518-4288-B679-749906B1B19F@fugue.com> <87shjoihnz.wl-jch@irif.fr> <416AD4BB-7A24-41D4-9C91-96B23BE65EF3@fugue.com> <EC469E5B-4E9A-4A6F-818F-EA52E654DE4C@iki.fi> <EE254C72-2E3C-4316-B0A0-9B9133E2F3C6@fugue.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.138]); Mon, 29 May 2017 16:02:41 +0200 (CEST)
X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 592C2A01.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)!
X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 592C2A01.000 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/<jch@irif.fr>
X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 592C2A01.000 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000
X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/KTuIUZn0uUw3jHZZQdyKeU960e0>
Subject: Re: [babel] What's up with HNCP security?
X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." <babel.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/babel>, <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/babel/>
List-Post: <mailto:babel@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel>, <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 14:02:45 -0000

> In the case we are talking about, a shared key doesn't work because if any
> device on the network is pwned, it can masquerade as any other device to
> escape detection. You or I could do a fault isolation process to figure out
> which device has been pwned, but we can't expect homenet users to be able to
> do that.

I think we're all well aware of the advantages of per-device keys.  I think
we're also well aware that there are tradeoffs between functionality and
complexity, and that sometimes it is worth giving up on features in order
to keep complexity at a manageable level.  (Radius, sheesh.)

I think we'd need a prototype in order to make an informed judgement.

-- Juliusz

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email