IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Geopriv] [geopriv] #23: Good Security of DHCP

"James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com> Wed, 20 January 2010 00:36 UTC

Return-Path: <jmpolk@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: geopriv@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: geopriv@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37BB23A680B for <geopriv@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:36:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.963
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.963 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.761, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q734jOCB5xGQ for <geopriv@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:36:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 592F23A6805 for <geopriv@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:36:08 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlsFAIPeVUurR7Ht/2dsb2JhbACHBJNaqB+VRYQzBA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.49,307,1262563200"; d="scan'208";a="290090671"
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com ([171.71.177.237]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Jan 2010 00:36:04 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o0K0a45j014857; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 00:36:04 GMT
Received: from xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.174]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:36:04 -0800
Received: from jmpolk-wxp01.cisco.com ([10.89.2.66]) by xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:36:03 -0800
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 18:36:01 -0600
To: trac@localhost.amsl.com, Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net, bernard_aboba@hotmail.com, mlinsner@cisco.com
From: "James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <076.7695ce221210c0f31b26068c8a655d3b@tools.ietf.org>
References: <067.d8c3c451cc0c66cb5bed185ebb0f9399@tools.ietf.org> <076.7695ce221210c0f31b26068c8a655d3b@tools.ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <XFE-SJC-2116eO6wGIa00001d39@xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jan 2010 00:36:04.0034 (UTC) FILETIME=[8C24A220:01CA9968]
Cc: geopriv@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] [geopriv] #23: Good Security of DHCP
X-BeenThere: geopriv@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Geographic Location/Privacy <geopriv.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv>, <mailto:geopriv-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv>
List-Post: <mailto:geopriv@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:geopriv-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv>, <mailto:geopriv-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 00:36:09 -0000

At 04:42 PM 1/19/2010, geopriv issue tracker wrote:
>#23: Good Security of DHCP 
>---------------------------------------+------------------------------------ 
>Reporter:  Hannes.Tschofenig@…        | 
>Owner:  Hannes.Tsschofenig@…            Type: 
>enhancement                 |       Status: 
>closed                    Priority:  major 
>                |    Milestone: 
>draft-ietf-geopriv-3825bis 
>Component:  rfc3825bis                 | 
>Version:                            Severity: 
>Active WG 
>Document         |   Resolution:  fixed 
>            Keywords: 
>  | 
>---------------------------------------+------------------------------------ 
>Changes (by bernard_aboba@…):   * stattus:  new 
>=> closed   * resolution:  => fixed   * 
>severity:  - => Active WG Document Comment: The 
>current text of the security considerations 
>section addresses potential disclosure risks as 
>well as modification attacks.  I will add some 
>advice on use of link level encryption in -06. 
>"Where critical decisions might be based on the 
>value of this GeoConf option, DHCP 
>authentication as defined in "Authentication for 
>DHCP Messages" [RFC3118] and "Dynamic Host 
>Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)" 
>[RFC3315] SHOULD be used to protect the 
>integrity of the DHCP options. Since there is no 
>privacy protection for DHCP messages, an 
>eavesdropper who can monitor the link between 
>the DHCP server and requesting client can 
>discover this LCI. To minimize the unintended 
>exposure of location information, the LCI option 
>SHOULD be returned by DHCP servers only when the 
>DHCP client has included this option in its 
>'parameter request list' (section 3.5 [RFC2131]).

wrt the above "when":

s/when/after

IMO this makes the statement more direct and to the point.

>When implementing a DHCP server that will serve 
>clients across an uncontrolled network, one 
>should consider the potential security risks."

I assume that for controlled networks -- this doesn't apply?

James

>  -- Ticket URL: 
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/wg/geopriv/trac/ticket/23#comment:3> 
> geopriv <http://tools.ietf.org/geopriv/> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> Geopriv mailing list Geopriv@ietf.org 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email