Re: [dtn-security] [dtn-interest] Security for DTN

Rohit <mprohit@gmail.com> Wed, 02 February 2011 20:20 UTC

Received: from mail-gx0-f169.google.com (mail-gx0-f169.google.com [209.85.161.169]) by maillists.intel-research.net (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p12KKEcN018617; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 12:20:14 -0800
Received: by gxk5 with SMTP id 5so171792gxk.28 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 02 Feb 2011 12:20:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.100.201.6 with SMTP id y6mr5963477anf.1.1296678016288; Wed, 02 Feb 2011 12:20:16 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.100.120.12 with HTTP; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 12:19:56 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikJGn8Uyomdk3ErRsjapRA1VvTiGyWazg+ddMrF@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikJGn8Uyomdk3ErRsjapRA1VvTiGyWazg+ddMrF@mail.gmail.com>
From: Rohit <mprohit@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 15:19:56 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTimbnVXE2njAUCTnMQpDHxHKo0p+MkKno=Pp4ZEA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shoaib Malik <shoaibmalik1981@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016368e1aa18c86fa049b526073
Cc: dtn-security@maillists.intel-research.net, dtn-interest@maillists.intel-research.net
Subject: Re: [dtn-security] [dtn-interest] Security for DTN
X-BeenThere: dtn-security@maillists.intel-research.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: DTN Security Discussion <dtn-security.maillists.intel-research.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://maillists.intel-research.net/mailman/listinfo/dtn-security>, <mailto:dtn-security-request@maillists.intel-research.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://maillists.intel-research.net/pipermail/dtn-security>
List-Post: <mailto:dtn-security@maillists.intel-research.net>
List-Help: <mailto:dtn-security-request@maillists.intel-research.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://maillists.intel-research.net/mailman/listinfo/dtn-security>, <mailto:dtn-security-request@maillists.intel-research.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 20:20:14 -0000

We can consider it as initial secure-context establishment problem. I have
recently come across a paper related to this topic. check the link below...

http://www.ics.uci.edu/~jsolis/publications/dtn_compsac09.pdf

<http://www.ics.uci.edu/~jsolis/publications/dtn_compsac09.pdf>I think the
question you raised by itself is a problem to address. So taking it as an
assumption really depends on the problem you are trying to address.

I am completely new to security in DTN. There are lot of experts in this
mailing list, who can give you better suggestion.

Regards,
Rohit Mullangi,
Graduate Student,
The University of Georgia,
Athens GA.


On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Shoaib Malik <shoaibmalik1981@gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

> hi,
> I am working on a secure DTN network.
>
> In the DTN network, Suppose a node, say N1, opportunistically becomes
> available to any other already existing node S, then at that time can we
> assume that there exist a confidential channel between N1 and S.
> In general, "Can we assume that there exist a confidential channel between
> each hop nodes, in a multi hop network".
>
> Is taking this assumption good or bad while working on security for DTN.
>
> regards,
> Shoaib
>
> _______________________________________________
> dtn-interest mailing list
> dtn-interest@maillists.intel-research.net
> http://maillists.intel-research.net/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest
>
>