RE: [Geopriv] [secdir] Review ofdraft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-07

"Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com> Mon, 26 May 2008 07:27 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB0243A6922; Mon, 26 May 2008 00:27:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70E183A68DB; Mon, 26 May 2008 00:27:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 cSxeGYenPtev; Mon, 26 May 2008 00:27:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (demumfd002.nsn-inter.net [217.115.75.234]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C4023A67E9; Mon, 26 May 2008 00:27:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.55]) by demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m4Q7RNTU003084 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 26 May 2008 09:27:23 +0200
Received: from demuexc023.nsn-intra.net (webmail.nsn-intra.net [10.150.128.36]) by demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m4Q7RCuC004118; Mon, 26 May 2008 09:27:18 +0200
Received: from demuexc024.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.32.11]) by demuexc023.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 26 May 2008 09:27:10 +0200
Received: from FIESEXC007.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.0.15]) by demuexc024.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 26 May 2008 09:27:10 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: RE: [Geopriv] [secdir] Review ofdraft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-07
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 10:27:08 +0300
Message-ID: <C41BFCED3C088E40A8510B57B165C162062CB7@FIESEXC007.nsn-intra.net>
In-Reply-To: <483A092B.10105@bbn.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Geopriv] [secdir] Review ofdraft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-07
Thread-Index: Aci+ynnse0/jQieGSGuJLhDVgFUNcwANu0BQ
References: <20080525020040.4DE5A5081A@romeo.rtfm.com> <483991AE.9060906@gmx.net> <20080525182946.DF50C2A74DA@kilo.rtfm.com> <4839C06C.5010506@gmx.net><20080525225416.E5B492A78AF@kilo.rtfm.com> <483A092B.10105@bbn.com>
From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com>
To: "ext Richard Barnes" <rbarnes@bbn.com>, "Eric Rescorla" <ekr@networkresonance.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 May 2008 07:27:10.0054 (UTC) FILETIME=[E8BB9860:01C8BF01]
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-7.0.0.1584-5.5.1026-15932.004
X-TM-AS-Result: No--12.645600-8.000000-31
Cc: GEOPRIV <geopriv@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery@tools.ietf.org, secdir@mit.edu, ietf@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

 
>What the document is trying to say is that because HELD uses 
>the requestor's IP address as a location identifier, if the 
>LIS is trying to assure that location is actually only 
>provided to the host that originates a request, then it must 
>have assurance that the source IP address of the request is 
>that of the originator, i.e., that the source address of the 
>request has not been spoofed.  If there is no requirement for 
>that level of assurance, then there is no requirement for 
>anti-spoofing.
>
>On the other hand, given that the LIS is notionally operated 
>by the access network operator, this is actually a local 
>requirement: If you, the network/LIS operator, require this 
>degree of assurance then you MUST implement measures to 
>prevent IP address spoofing.  (Note, however, the
>conditionality.)
>
>--Richard

I think it is also important to mention that IP address spoofing itself
is not sufficient. As an adversary you also need to see the response in
order to actually see the provided location information.

Ciao
Hannes
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf