Re: [dtn-security] Security for DTN

Peter Lovell <plovell@mac.com> Wed, 02 February 2011 22:04 UTC

Received: from asmtpout016.mac.com (asmtpout016.mac.com [17.148.16.91]) by maillists.intel-research.net (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p12M4ocu024020; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 14:04:50 -0800
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Received: from [192.168.1.98] (pool-71-178-36-205.washdc.fios.verizon.net [71.178.36.205]) by asmtp016.mac.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Exchange Server 7u4-20.01 64bit (built Nov 21 2010)) with ESMTPSA id <0LG0002TSG01NO00@asmtp016.mac.com>; Wed, 02 Feb 2011 14:04:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.2.15, 1.0.148, 0.0.0000 definitions=2011-02-02_09:2011-02-02, 2011-02-02, 1970-01-01 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx engine=6.0.2-1012030000 definitions=main-1102020179
From: Peter Lovell <plovell@mac.com>
To: Shoaib Malik <shoaibmalik1981@gmail.com>, dtn-security@maillists.intel-research.net
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 17:04:48 -0500
Message-id: <20110202220448.1935347185@smtp.mac.com>
In-reply-to: <AANLkTikJGn8Uyomdk3ErRsjapRA1VvTiGyWazg+ddMrF@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikJGn8Uyomdk3ErRsjapRA1VvTiGyWazg+ddMrF@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: CTM PowerMail version 6.0.6 build 4630 English (intel) <http://www.ctmdev.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by maillists.intel-research.net id p12M4ocu024020
Cc: dtn-interest@maillists.intel-research.net
Subject: Re: [dtn-security] 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 22:04:50 -0000

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011, Shoaib Malik <shoaibmalik1981@gmail.com> 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

HI Shoaib,

you can't assume that any particular node implements the security
protocol, or any particular ciphersuite. There is no "automatic"
confidential or secure channel - it depends entirely upon the deployment.

Regards.....Peter