Re: [dhcwg] Security review of draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-08.txt
神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Mon, 27 July 2015 18:25 UTC
Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@gmail.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 48E351B31E3 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:25:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 L_QbukFKc8OR for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:25:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x22a.google.com (mail-ig0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D9441B3193 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:24:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iggf3 with SMTP id f3so88715165igg.1 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:24:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=qLopo7KFuKbQc8CEny4WblbosewHDYb/+YjY5n09rDQ=; b=0DLOOVTQHPSLgRuqh2Z5bI68pcU/vAypbMagyIzXi7hOM3m9Nr/b0WpOgsj+QU1Lpx yx0wtxmOiCFfx1ggPg3lj+QEQbIk6duijIrDCGrd12LzA5WZIw8rF/dXVr9hOOntx5RW qh7eRcbSG2jYUR0wPpji+tfWA0+hG9br04hQMdedidoB3JamLFp2xndBwJ5UtR5mvrk3 lrVgzOkS8u9wLHY7kZlWVfo/4YR2YU/+HDYpm/PQqV46q5hjbu5ZGtwM1OMz5EMpVBMV 7XnhZAFz6U70QLl34lT3gENWIqz7Xw6kTtteHSVVS5OB9f4yP0fPaJSzRnyKICGhyxer pmsA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.102.7 with SMTP id fk7mr20914572igb.49.1438021466824; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:24:26 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com
Received: by 10.107.19.139 with HTTP; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:24:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <55A6A5C6.7090809@innovationslab.net>
References: <m2h9pewm8j.wl%randy@psg.com> <55A6A5C6.7090809@innovationslab.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 03:24:26 +0900
X-Google-Sender-Auth: I3_j9F9rBahxgbjFxYasCMS8nxo
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqe25+vW8VHDou0jgA6uB9YftbJYa-LNgepMvJV0DZLjvw@mail.gmail.com>
From: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
To: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/v22G5-mIAbLKqVh9SOmmlaM99ZQ>
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 18:25:13 -0000
> 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] Security review of draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv… Brian Haberman
- Re: [dhcwg] Security review of draft-ietf-dhc-sed… 神明達哉
- Re: [dhcwg] Security review of draft-ietf-dhc-sed… Brian Haberman
- Re: [dhcwg] Security review of draft-ietf-dhc-sed… Bernie Volz (volz)