Re: [homenet] draft-ietf-homenet-babel-profile: please review Security Considerations

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Wed, 25 October 2017 17:25 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03A2B13F43F for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Oct 2017 10:25:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fGgvHqDZ6p9p for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Oct 2017 10:25:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x232.google.com (mail-qk0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C19CD13F439 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Oct 2017 10:25:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x232.google.com with SMTP id f199so1009048qke.2 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Oct 2017 10:25:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=QU1eNd32X3Z5pZ94sORzES+fRKY+pnt0uAG1XTIO+gc=; b=j0HQH0+vaJ0BDlQ0NADekAxmxs8Z+F49/okntQQrpvh72nCgWLr+ph2Whtei95tWod +aYDfeP02PXxVDCcL/m0MvANiJ6QO8LGhFCXqrdSfD6rEDth8Jq86KoK2arzZnnS10mO v0f9ce8nb7e0Pfs6/d3L1NQhxhG+tO3pqvIwliGFP6mC8jwp9HsMEvxO0RAogZ85uXhG ApIM2ZK/MuJjWtwX2ipi0F7z593XDQlSZoXgmZjnunhUlh6Bvdb4WupFT0q2l837gbl7 oea3ERS9u9xbiwaHLfi/BqEo4Sx5yu9oqqbwgyKuTsJ1pDHlTO4832YSMIt/uZty5uKP TOrg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=QU1eNd32X3Z5pZ94sORzES+fRKY+pnt0uAG1XTIO+gc=; b=RFsgxq5hRoJo4G/ZHWrMWeX7+T99eBS9GuJIz0ZRNrZHBUUGbmBHglchzwmgRIxMMO 3bqVkDIt/VehQBn3L4pemsdwOOHSfU0mskFxk9n0u2ja3xgvy2E+DqteQtsnTa+TPuSx 0z88OjbcCT3bA3Cfo7X+x1uKJZZLojvTCn4KGk2PRG9xq7hswmYI8fpXyihhcZCaCy38 J0G5YePZxx8bEbxV/N222JuY6JisXNkBffLcQ1/tVQ5Q91AX4FKzcQW7KGrzF0j7E1G8 E09t3b/PnjknHVloJECYKJAlIItO0uG4JBzGSbMQXgkaYjSyjJJ730afnNOlzeR0yTvA hmUQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaWyYUdXpAW8QZEClDWAZI2vtDQYIdmbcNFj5UMGmnT6p5N6WRMD /uj+A8fV1HB8xPMkg+0/5MSDlg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+S9ph7ZnfdovNJje/YdBsjooI+/ZAON1OexzlLOAjdJlm3hCHlb6EwXZk5LLNltvFTVADSKMA==
X-Received: by 10.55.159.209 with SMTP id i200mr4129084qke.277.1508952345916; Wed, 25 Oct 2017 10:25:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cavall.lan (c-24-60-163-103.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [24.60.163.103]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 6sm2240835qtz.68.2017.10.25.10.25.44 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 25 Oct 2017 10:25:45 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
In-Reply-To: <7i8tfzutdd.wl-jch@irif.fr>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 13:25:44 -0400
Cc: homenet@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <270FABE5-AB5C-4CB8-9F47-1C9DB2E88E1C@fugue.com>
References: <7id15bux3w.wl-jch@irif.fr> <7i8tfzutdd.wl-jch@irif.fr>
To: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/ngkJ1GRuL6Ns4mKCcgtpdH7U5Us>
Subject: Re: [homenet] draft-ietf-homenet-babel-profile: please review Security Considerations
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list <homenet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/homenet/>
List-Post: <mailto:homenet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 17:25:55 -0000

I think that relying on the trustworthiness of a link is not a great plan.   It might be better to say something like "this protocol relies on the trustworthiness of the local link. better security can be achieved using babel security [ref]. keying and configuration for babel security is out of scope for this document."

> On Oct 25, 2017, at 11:42 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr> wrote:
> 
>> Please, please, please take the time to read the Security Considerations
>> and tell me if there's anything I need to change.
> 
>>  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-homenet-babel-profile-02#section-4
> 
> This is now
> 
>    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-homenet-babel-profile-03#section-4
> 
> I believe this answers at least some of the concerns that Leif Johansson
> expressed in his early review of 10 August 2017.  I believe this is the
> best that we can do without further protocol work, but I would love to be
> proved wrong.
> 
> Barbara, Stephen -- should I write up an answer to Leif's security review?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -- Juliusz
> 
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> homenet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet