Re: [dtn-security] security layer

"Peter Lovell" <peter.lovell@sparta.com> Thu, 03 April 2008 12:27 UTC

Received: from M4.sparta.com (M4.sparta.com [157.185.61.2]) by maillists.intel-research.net (8.13.8/8.13.7) with ESMTP id m33CRs46005941 for <dtn-security@mailman.dtnrg.org>; Thu, 3 Apr 2008 05:27:55 -0700
Received: from Beta5.sparta.com (beta5.sparta.com [157.185.63.21]) by M4.sparta.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id m33CYgXZ003526; Thu, 3 Apr 2008 07:34:42 -0500
Received: from nemo.columbia.ads.sparta.com (nemo.columbia.sparta.com [157.185.80.75]) by Beta5.sparta.com (8.12.11/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m33CYgrN026691; Thu, 3 Apr 2008 07:34:42 -0500
Received: from [192.168.4.98] ([157.185.80.253]) by nemo.columbia.ads.sparta.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 3 Apr 2008 08:34:41 -0400
From: "Peter Lovell" <peter.lovell@sparta.com>
To: <M.Bhutta@surrey.ac.uk>, "dtn security" <dtn-security@mailman.dtnrg.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 08:34:40 -0400
Message-Id: <20080403123440.45673365@127.0.0.1>
In-Reply-To: <676D5FD21A8EEC4591C13839BF2A14B9F166F1@EVS-EC1-NODE4.surrey.ac.uk>
References: <676D5FD21A8EEC4591C13839BF2A14B9F166F1@EVS-EC1-NODE4.surrey.ac.uk>
X-Mailer: CTM PowerMail version 5.6.3 build 4504 English (intel) <http://www.ctmdev.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Apr 2008 12:34:41.0724 (UTC) FILETIME=[16E43FC0:01C89587]
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (M4.sparta.com [157.185.61.2]); Thu, 03 Apr 2008 07:34:42 -0500 (CDT)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by maillists.intel-research.net id m33CRs46005941
Subject: Re: [dtn-security] security layer
X-BeenThere: dtn-security@mailman.dtnrg.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: DTN Security Discussion <dtn-security.mailman.dtnrg.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://maillists.intel-research.net/mailman/listinfo/dtn-security>, <mailto:dtn-security-request@mailman.dtnrg.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://maillists.intel-research.net/pipermail/dtn-security>
List-Post: <mailto:dtn-security@mailman.dtnrg.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dtn-security-request@mailman.dtnrg.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://maillists.intel-research.net/mailman/listinfo/dtn-security>, <mailto:dtn-security-request@mailman.dtnrg.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 12:27:56 -0000

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008, M.Bhutta@surrey.ac.uk <M.Bhutta@surrey.ac.uk> wrote:

>Hello, 
>When we design a secure system, the security should be provided at each
>layer to make a good secure system. 
>If we develop a system on top of DTN based network, then which layer
>will be best suitable to provide security extensions.  
>
>Suppose, we have underlying sensor network and on top DTN as overlay
>network, which layer we should provide the security services 
>for such system.  I think, to get benefits like, generic solution, we
>should introduce security extensions to bundle layer ... 
>
>                             Bundle Layer 
>                              Security 
>                             Transport Layer 
>                             Network Layer
>                             Data Link Layer 
>                             Physical Layer  
>
>Please comment on this and appropriate suggestions for building a
>security architecture for overlay network on top of sensor networks. 
>
>Nasir

Hi Nasir,

if you're looking to add security extensions to the bundle layer itself,
these documents are a good place to start.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-dtnrg-sec-overview-04.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-dtnrg-bundle-security-05.txt

Regards.....Peter