RE: IPSEC MIBs?
Cliff Wang <cxwang@us.ibm.com> Thu, 28 May 1998 13:59 UTC
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by portal.ex.tis.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) id JAA27156 for ipsec-outgoing; Thu, 28 May 1998 09:59:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Cliff Wang <cxwang@us.ibm.com>
To: ipsec@tis.com
Cc: rja@inet.org
Subject: RE: IPSEC MIBs?
Message-ID: <5040200015513229000002L092*@MHS>
Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 09:56:07 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com
Precedence: bulk
If the MIB is just used to monitor the IPsec SA status only but not used to config the policy, would that still weakens IPsec? In other words, the MIB is designed for GET function only, no SET allowed. Of course, some of the running status/statistics of a SA may be expose by SNMP, but without exposing the keys (keying materials), how big a threat will MIB pose? Thanks for any insight into this! cliff -----Original Message----- From: Ran Atkinson [SMTP:rja@inet.org] Sent: Thursday, May 28, 1998 3:11 AM To: Stephen Waters Subject: Re: IPSEC MIBs? Doing a useful MIB for IPsec would tend to reduce the security of an IPsec implementation to the min(IPsec security, SNMP security). The latter (SNMP Security) is generally accepted to be weaker (especially pre-SNMPv3, but even with SNMPv3 in place). I'd suggest that weakening the security of an implementation of a security protocol is probably not a good global optimisation. Ran
- IPSEC MIBs? Stephen Waters
- Re: IPSEC MIBs? Robert Moskowitz
- RE: IPSEC MIBs? Stephen Waters
- RE: IPSEC MIBs? Paul Koning
- RE: IPSEC MIBs? Cliff Wang