IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPsec] AD review comments for draft-ietf-ipsecme-traffic-visibility

Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi> Mon, 21 September 2009 11:12 UTC

Return-Path: <kivinen@iki.fi>
X-Original-To: ipsec@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipsec@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABE8D3A6994 for <ipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 04:12:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.547
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.547 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.052, 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 MwTvBSwtJQlN for <ipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 04:12:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.kivinen.iki.fi (fireball.acr.fi [83.145.195.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AD603A6939 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 04:12:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fireball.kivinen.iki.fi (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.kivinen.iki.fi (8.14.3/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n8LBDmfe024701 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:13:48 +0300 (EEST)
Received: (from kivinen@localhost) by fireball.kivinen.iki.fi (8.14.3/8.12.11) id n8LBDj9g015133; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:13:45 +0300 (EEST)
X-Authentication-Warning: fireball.kivinen.iki.fi: kivinen set sender to kivinen@iki.fi using -f
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <19127.24553.76610.294336@fireball.kivinen.iki.fi>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:13:45 +0300
From: Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>
To: "Grewal, Ken" <ken.grewal@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <C49B4B6450D9AA48AB99694D2EB0A483325793BA@rrsmsx505.amr.corp.intel.com>
References: <808FD6E27AD4884E94820BC333B2DB773C06B22D72@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> <C49B4B6450D9AA48AB99694D2EB0A483325793BA@rrsmsx505.amr.corp.intel.com>
X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 21.4.1
X-Edit-Time: 4 min
X-Total-Time: 5 min
Cc: "ipsec@ietf.org" <ipsec@ietf.org>, "Pasi.Eronen@nokia.com" <Pasi.Eronen@nokia.com>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] AD review comments for draft-ietf-ipsecme-traffic-visibility
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipsec>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 11:12:51 -0000

Grewal, Ken writes:
> >- A question: did the WG discuss the pros and cons of integrity
> >protecting the WESP header? (This does make WESP more complex to
> >implement, and currently the WESP header does not contain any data
> >that would benefit from integrity protection in any way.)
> [Ken] This change was the result of a discussion on threats posed by
> 'malware', which could modify the WESP headers to obfuscate the
> payload from inspection by intermediate nodes such as IDS/IPS
> systems.  
> The issue (ticket #104) was raised and closed some time back after
> lengthy discussions on the topic.  
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ipsecme/trac/ticket/104

As everything in the WESP header is something that can be verified by
the recipient node why is the integrity protection needed?

I think it would make implementation WESP much easier if it can be
done as post processing step after ESP has been applied, in a similar
way UDP encapsulation can be done to the ESP packet. 
-- 
kivinen@iki.fi

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status