IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] Security review of draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-08.txt

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> Mon, 27 July 2015 19:50 UTC

Return-Path: <volz@cisco.com>
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 1ECDF1B3341 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 12:50:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 PbH_QKu01ha0 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 12:50:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 86FF71B3344 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 12:50:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1894; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1438026619; x=1439236219; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=SkCFp4/tNojPt+AEqKlhsVaKQXMkeZlYeJcLIk1rqIc=; b=NVlWnfDApOwPAQ2ztF2seHsDvnrRXKyr5t+cBdOshZxkmkmV2n/g5aNm h7+qMoOtQjB9WNwNeGtDUj3od/7PVEpFfLfMal2afLAutGBIE65qbnxVf O8YnlP+ym8V+fiVJN1xO4tcxgM+OvIhCBUx+Ozjg2NP/KZQPJ5z3ntCpv Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BIAwBHirZV/5ldJa1bgxVUaQaDHaoGjnIJgW0KhXkCgUc4FAEBAQEBAQGBCoQjAQEBAwEBAQEeAUwLBQcEAgEIEQQBAQIDBh0CAwInCxQJCAIEAQ0FCIgeCA2daZ0UAZYUAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBEwSBH4ovhDwaMQcGgmAygRQBBJRpAaVmJoIOHIFTb4FIgQQBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,556,1432598400"; d="scan'208";a="172455301"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Jul 2015 19:50:18 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x12.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x12.cisco.com [173.36.12.86]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t6RJoIG9025251 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 27 Jul 2015 19:50:18 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.177]) by xhc-aln-x12.cisco.com ([173.36.12.86]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 14:50:18 -0500
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
To: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>, Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] Security review of draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-08.txt
Thread-Index: AQHQyJmXwox9OMo3TUCW/PRmPS6TR53vuLuQ
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 19:50:18 +0000
Message-ID: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1CB8CAE0@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
References: <m2h9pewm8j.wl%randy@psg.com> <55A6A5C6.7090809@innovationslab.net> <CAJE_bqe25+vW8VHDou0jgA6uB9YftbJYa-LNgepMvJV0DZLjvw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJE_bqe25+vW8VHDou0jgA6uB9YftbJYa-LNgepMvJV0DZLjvw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.98.1.196]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/qZ08cw7ihpRK5pCYXNDR-HzRmHo>
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Security review of draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-08.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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 19:50:21 -0000

Couldn't one replace MAC address with client-id and server-id options (DUID)?

I'm not sure we'd want to do this, but in theory it is possible -- yet requires a certificate to be issued for these which gets back to the distribution problem and how does a client without a global address verify the server's certificate is valid and usable (if it has no way to confirm certificate authority/revocation lists).

And doesn't all of this open up privacy concerns, especially if one has to use the true MAC address (or consistent DUID).

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: dhcwg [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ????
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 2:24 PM
To: Brian Haberman
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org; Russ Housley
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Security review of draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-08.txt

>      Russ Housley has reviewed the sedhcp draft from a security 
> perspective.  His comments are below.  I have included him on the 
> distribution so that he can engage in the discussion.

> ------

> Section 4 says that TOFU is an option.  I like leap-of-faith 
> mechanisms in some situations, but I am not convinced that this is one of them.

Specifically what are you referring to by "this"?  The paragraph beginning with "TOFU can also be used" and talking about hijack prevention?

> One possible way forward is to look at the certificates that are being 
> discussed in 802.1 for MACsec.  They bind a MAC address to a public key.
>  Can the 802.1 certificate be used here too?

I'm not familiar with MACsec, but I'm afraid the answer is "no", since a client and a server may not be in the same layer 2 network (they can be off-link and communicate via a relay agent).

--
JINMEI, Tatuya

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email