[hiprg] blind design alternative

Miika Komu <mkomu@cs.hut.fi> Wed, 24 March 2010 16:38 UTC

Return-Path: <mkomu@cs.hut.fi>
X-Original-To: hiprg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hiprg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 484743A6BB9 for <hiprg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:38:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.869
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.869 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 8mIFfB8qGd0f for <hiprg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:38:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hutcs.cs.hut.fi (hutcs.cs.hut.fi [130.233.192.7]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C8E63A6A48 for <hiprg@irtf.org>; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:38:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hutcs.cs.hut.fi ([130.233.192.7] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by hutcs.cs.hut.fi with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.54) id 1NuTbb-00072k-S8; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:38:56 +0200
Message-ID: <4BAA401D.3040702@cs.hut.fi>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:38:53 +0200
From: Miika Komu <mkomu@cs.hut.fi>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.10pre) Gecko/20100323 Shredder/3.0.5pre
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: hiprg@irtf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [hiprg] blind design alternative
X-BeenThere: hiprg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Host Identity Protocol \(HIP\) Research Group" <hiprg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hiprg>, <mailto:hiprg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/hiprg>
List-Post: <mailto:hiprg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hiprg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hiprg>, <mailto:hiprg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 16:38:42 -0000

Hi,

we discussed an alternative for blind during our presentation. I would 
like to ask for the research group feedback also here in the mailing list.

The idea in the alternative is to use disposable host identities for the 
base exchange. The I2 and R2 packets in the base exchange would carry 
encrypted parameters with long-term public keys. The ownership for the 
long-term public keys could be proved e.g. with some extra signatures 
and certificates. This alternative can also be protected against polling 
attacks similarly as blind.

Quick and dirty qualitative analysis for blind below. The proposed 
alternative has the opposite benefits and drawbacks of blind.

Blind:
+ Requires less computation
+ Smaller packet size
+ Amount of preshared information is smaller (HITs and not complete HIs)
+ HITs can be rescrambled after handovers (?)
- Middleboxes cannot verify signatures

Summing up the pros and cons blindly would make blind more a more 
attractable alternative. However, the last two points carry possibly a 
lot of more weight than the others and therefore it is a bit unclear to 
me which is the winner.

Comments?