RE: [IPsec] Use of SPD in verifying incoming packets
Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> Fri, 30 November 2007 22:58 UTC
Return-path: <ipsec-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyEoR-0000UF-6G; Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:58:23 -0500
Received: from ipsec by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IyEoP-0000HK-H6 for ipsec-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:58:21 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyEoP-0000EB-4o for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:58:21 -0500
Received: from mx12.bbn.com ([128.33.0.81]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyEoO-0007Fn-6m for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:58:21 -0500
Received: from dhcp89-089-071.bbn.com ([128.89.89.71]) by mx12.bbn.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <kent@bbn.com>) id 1IyEoN-0007pt-3X; Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:58:19 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p0624051cc37641d6dcee@[128.89.89.71]>
In-Reply-To: <D3CFEF84287B46408A7F0405EE7C545775387F@corvette.eu.tieto.com>
References: <1194632232.2477.636.camel@faith.austin.ibm.com><20071109183409.GB3152@keb e.East.Sun.COM><1194639081.2477.659.camel@faith.austin.ibm.com> <p06240503c35a75e82fee@[128.89.89.71]> <D3CFEF84287B46408A7F0405EE7C545775387F@corvette.eu.tieto.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:55:16 -0500
To: Inger.Bohlbro@tietoenator.com
From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
Subject: RE: [IPsec] Use of SPD in verifying incoming packets
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 68ba2b07ef271dba6ee42a93832cfa4c
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0247621231=="
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
At 12:25 PM +0100 11/28/07, <Inger.Bohlbro@tietoenator.com> wrote: >Hi, > >The text in RFC4301 page 24-26 regarding IKE negotiation is not >clear to me. It says > "For example, suppose one starts > with an entry A (from an ordered SPD) that when decorrelated, > yields entries A1, A2, and A3. When a packet comes along that > matches, say A2, and triggers the creation of an SA, the SA > management protocol (e.g., IKEv2) negotiates A." ... > "Alternatively, the original entry from the (correlated) SPD may be > retained and passed to the SA management protocol." >I read this as IKE is allowed as an initiator to propose A in a negotiation. > >However RFC4718 page 21 (section 4.12): > "the initiator should not propose traffic selectors that >violate its own policy. If this rule is not followed, valid traffic >may be dropped." > >Is RFC4718 overruling RFC4301 on this point ? Saying that A should >never be proposed, but "only" A1, A2, A3 proposed. > >If this is the case then I understand that inbound traffic arriving >on an SA need only be validated against the SA and need not be >verified against the access control policy expressed in the >(ordered) SPD. > >Regards >Inger Bohlbro Thw statements in 4301 and 4718 are not really contradictory. Since A is in the SPD, it is allowed under the 4718 criteria you cited. It is preferable to pass A1, A2 and A3, because they allow the responder to more accurately match the initiator's policy to theirs, but either approach is allowed for the initiator. The responder MUST respond with a TS set that reflects the intersection of the initiator's proposal and its SPD. If an SPD is not de-correlated, then the access control check for received traffic is problematic. If the receiver caches the SPD entry A in the SAD, that may give a false acceptance for received traffic, which is not OK. To be secure, the receiver needs to process the received traffic against the ordered SPD, which is a slow process. That's why we specified proper operation for IPsec relative to a decorrelated SPD model. Steve
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
- [IPsec] Use of SPD in verifying incoming packets Joy Latten
- Re: [IPsec] Use of SPD in verifying incoming pack… Dan McDonald
- Re: [IPsec] Use of SPD in verifying incoming pack… Joy Latten
- Re: [IPsec] Use of SPD in verifying incoming pack… Stephen Kent
- Re: [IPsec] Use of SPD in verifying incoming pack… Joy Latten
- RE: [IPsec] Use of SPD in verifying incoming pack… Inger.Bohlbro
- RE: [IPsec] Use of SPD in verifying incoming pack… Stephen Kent