Re: [dtn-security] Issue implementing security source/destination with ESB blocks

"Birrane, Edward J." <Edward.Birrane@jhuapl.edu> Tue, 07 August 2012 16:56 UTC

Return-Path: <edward.birrane@jhuapl.edu>
X-Original-To: dtn-security@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dtn-security@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E115F21F86C5 for <dtn-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 09:56:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5bx0STSDb+Sk for <dtn-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 09:56:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jhuapl.edu (piper.jhuapl.edu [128.244.251.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E4EF21F8674 for <dtn-security@irtf.org>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 09:56:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([128.244.198.91]) by piper.jhuapl.edu with ESMTP with TLS id 5Y8HCH1.141990507; Tue, 07 Aug 2012 12:56:16 -0400
Received: from aplesfreedom.dom1.jhuapl.edu ([128.244.198.204]) by aplexcas2.dom1.jhuapl.edu ([128.244.198.91]) with mapi; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 12:56:16 -0400
From: "Birrane, Edward J." <Edward.Birrane@jhuapl.edu>
To: Peter Lovell <plovell@mac.com>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 12:56:15 -0400
Thread-Topic: [dtn-security] Issue implementing security source/destination with ESB blocks
Thread-Index: Ac10vPTGRnA81PbySxWPw6J6l2dy3gAABFsA
Message-ID: <329D879C76FDD04AAAE84BB1D89B39700689BEEF2B@aplesfreedom.dom1.jhuapl.edu>
References: <20120802214016.1861780438@smtp.mail.me.com> <501B3B2F.5090508@folly.org.uk> <329D879C76FDD04AAAE84BB1D89B397006842FE3A0@aplesfreedom.dom1.jhuapl.edu> <20120803221701.223057816@smtp.mail.me.com> <e5f316d31c243f6f6758ffc0a81303ca.squirrel@webmail.math.umd.edu> <20120806162008.1123881582@smtp.mail.me.com> <a7078fb0d6bad00c68fe43ca5272a52b.squirrel@webmail.math.umd.edu> <20120807161303.1666733293@smtp.mail.me.com> <502141C6.8030804@cs.tcd.ie> <2E6CABBD-4D93-4829-B6ED-3720313439C0@mac.com>
In-Reply-To: <2E6CABBD-4D93-4829-B6ED-3720313439C0@mac.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "dtn-security@irtf.org" <dtn-security@irtf.org>, "ahennes1@math.umd.edu" <ahennes1@math.umd.edu>
Subject: Re: [dtn-security] Issue implementing security source/destination with ESB blocks
X-BeenThere: dtn-security@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "The Delay-Tolerant Networking Research Group \(DTNRG\) - Security." <dtn-security.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/dtn-security>, <mailto:dtn-security-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/dtn-security>
List-Post: <mailto:dtn-security@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dtn-security-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-security>, <mailto:dtn-security-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 16:56:26 -0000

All,

  If, when writing the errata list, a proposed solution for surgery on the EID list is proposed, I would ask that you consider the following.

  If the existing EID list from the encapsulated block *already* contains the security source, security destination, or both (but not at the front of the EID-list) then I recommend we not repeat the security source and/or destination in the encapsulating block by prepending them.

  I would recommend flags and EID-list indices in the ciphersuite parameters rather than repetition or EID-list re-ordering.

-Ed


---
Ed Birrane
Senior Professional Staff, Space Department
Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory
(W) 443-778-7423 / (F) 443-228-3839
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Lovell [mailto:plovell@mac.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 12:29 PM
> To: Stephen Farrell
> Cc: ahennes1@math.umd.edu; aloomis@sarn.org; Corbett, Cherita L.;
> Birrane, Edward J.; Elwyn Davies; dtn-security@irtf.org
> Subject: Re: [dtn-security] Issue implementing security source/destination
> with ESB blocks
> 
> Sounds like a plan ...
> 
> Cheers.....Peter
> 
> On Aug 7, 2012, at 12:26 PM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
> wrote:
> 
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Sorry I've not been reading this since I was running around madly
> > IETFing last week;-)
> >
> > I'd say best is if maybe Pete and Angela could draft an erratum and
> > post that here. We can stick into the system once folks have had a few
> > days to consider it. Probably also worth a mention on dtn-interest at
> > that point too since that list has more people on it than this.
> >
> > Once approved, it'll show up on the tools page for the RFC.
> > The RG chairs can approve errata like this.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > S.
> >
> > On 08/07/2012 05:13 PM, Peter Lovell wrote:
> >> Hi Angela,
> >>
> >> you're correct in that item 2 doesn't apply to PC3.
> >>
> >> However it might be too strong to say that it doesn't apply to any, as-yet-
> undesigned, PC ciphersuite. Right now, the only EIDs defined are for sec-src
> and sec-dest but I can imagine ciphersuites that might have additional ones.
> >>
> >> I think that the description for PC3 should be quite specific, but that the
> general description for PI and PC ciphersuites should be permissive.
> >>
> >> Regards.....Peter
> >>
> >> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013, ahennes1@math.umd.edu
> <ahennes1@math.umd.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Peter,
> >>>
> >>> I don't think that item 2 applies to PCB. In ESB, there is a
> >>> one-to-one replacement of extension blocks with ESB blocks. In PCB,
> there's a "first"
> >>> PCB that contains the ciphersuite ID, parameters and the security
> >>> src/dest (if present):
> >>>
> >>>  Put another way: when confidentiality will generate multiple
> >>> blocks,  it MUST create a "first" PCB with the required ciphersuite
> >>> ID,  parameters, etc., as specified above.  Typically, this PCB will
> >>> appear early in the bundle.  This "first" PCB contains the
> >>> parameters  that apply to the payload and also to the other
> >>> correlated PCBs.  The  correlated PCBs follow the "first" PCB and
> >>> MUST NOT repeat the  ciphersuite-parameters, security-source, or
> >>> security-destination  fields from the first PCB.
> >>>
> >>> Then this correlated PCB that encapsulates a PIB or PCB will copy
> >>> the eid-list from the encapsulated block. I think the eid-list from
> >>> the PIB or PCB will only contain the security src/dest of that
> >>> block, so the new encapsulating PCB will also have at most 2 eid-refs.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Angela
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Angela,
> >>>>
> >>>> Item 1 is fine
> >>>>
> >>>> For item 2, the exception applies to both ESB and PCB. A PCB that
> >>>> encapsulates a block that already has an EID-list, such as PIB or
> >>>> PCB, may have a long list, just as ESB may. Your comments on items
> >>>> 3 and 4 also need revisiting in this light - I think that their
> >>>> treatment will be the same.
> >>>>
> >>>> I can draft some language for item 3 if you like. I would probably
> >>>> describe it as copying the EID-list to the new block and then
> >>>> prepending sec-src and sec-dest if necessary.
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards.....Peter
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Aug 6, 2012, ahennes1@math.umd.edu
> <ahennes1@math.umd.edu> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> All,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm trying to summarize the issues with RFC6257 for an errata
> >>>>> list. How does this sound:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1. In Section 2.1, in the description of the EID-references, it
> >>>>> should mention that the EID-refs are preceded by a count field.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2. Also in Section 2.1, it states that there can be at most 2 eid
> >>>>> refs in an Abstract Security Block. An exception should be added
> >>>>> for ESB, which can have an arbitrary number of eid refs based on
> >>>>> the number in the original extension block and how many times it has
> been encapsulated.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 3. In Section 2.5, in the discussion of ESB, there needs to be
> >>>>> some language describing how the eid-ref list in the encapsulated
> >>>>> block is appended to the (optional) security src/dest of the
> >>>>> encapsulating ESB. As a result, the eid-ref list in the ESB may be
> >>>>> of arbitrary length. Also in Section 2.5, the statement that eid
> >>>>> list entries should be handled analogously to PCB should be
> >>>>> removed (along with the reference to Section 2.4).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 4. In Section 4.4, in the description of ESB-RSA-AES128-EXT, the
> >>>>> statement that eid list entries should be handled analogously to
> >>>>> PCB should be removed (along with the reference to Section 2.4).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> Angela
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>