IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] more thoughts about draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-02.txt

Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr> Thu, 26 June 2014 16:30 UTC

Return-Path: <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C04B81B29AE for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 09:30:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.203
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 iaC1_BgSPzAe for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 09:30:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (givry.fdupont.fr [IPv6:2001:41d0:1:6d55:211:5bff:fe98:d51e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B15771B2EA7 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 09:11:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by givry.fdupont.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id s5QGBBl8086343; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 18:11:11 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from dupont@givry.fdupont.fr)
Message-Id: <201406261611.s5QGBBl8086343@givry.fdupont.fr>
From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
To: Sten Carlsen <stenc@s-carlsen.dk>
In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:49:58 +0200. <53AAC576.7070609@s-carlsen.dk>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 18:11:11 +0200
Sender: Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/28SmgXvTUaIlLte27Mk98MiQhjQ
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] more thoughts about draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-02.txt
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 16:30:40 -0000

 In your previous mail you wrote:

>  > => to make timestamps more efficient for security you have to allow only
>  > small drift, so a pre-synchronization procedure should help to solve
>  > the unsecure/large vs secure/hard-to-implement drift. 
>  To me it seems that a pre-synchronisation procedure is a great help for
>  intruders?

=> I can't see why you say that or do you mean timestamps have another
role than anti-replay?

>  Now you can make sure the target is in time sync with the attack just by
>  synchronising with it first, really opens the window for attacks.

=> which attacks? messages are signed so a synchronized attacker has
no advantages...

Regards

Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email