RE: Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

<l.wood@surrey.ac.uk> Thu, 23 January 2014 21:58 UTC

Return-Path: <l.wood@surrey.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB2FA1A0434; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 13:58:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham
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 Rg4fuYIpdw-m; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 13:58:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail1.bemta5.messagelabs.com (mail1.bemta5.messagelabs.com [195.245.231.153]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB9571A0433; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 13:58:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [195.245.231.67:7989] by server-17.bemta-5.messagelabs.com id C3/A5-19152-D9091E25; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 21:58:53 +0000
X-Env-Sender: l.wood@surrey.ac.uk
X-Msg-Ref: server-13.tower-82.messagelabs.com!1390514333!36740063!1
X-Originating-IP: [131.227.200.35]
X-StarScan-Received:
X-StarScan-Version: 6.9.16; banners=-,-,-
X-VirusChecked: Checked
Received: (qmail 7559 invoked from network); 23 Jan 2014 21:58:53 -0000
Received: from exht021p.surrey.ac.uk (HELO EXHT021P.surrey.ac.uk) (131.227.200.35) by server-13.tower-82.messagelabs.com with AES128-SHA encrypted SMTP; 23 Jan 2014 21:58:53 -0000
Received: from EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk ([169.254.1.204]) by EXHT021P.surrey.ac.uk ([131.227.200.35]) with mapi; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 21:58:52 +0000
From: l.wood@surrey.ac.uk
To: fgont@si6networks.com, lear@cisco.com, stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie, simon.perreault@viagenie.ca, iesg@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 21:58:04 +0000
Subject: RE: Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Topic: Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: Ac8YY31nzkx2XZhUTPy9EdzXC3x9yQAIrQaz
Message-ID: <290E20B455C66743BE178C5C84F1240847E63346E4@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk>
References: <20140121155253.23475.70004.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52DE9E63.5050404@si6networks.com> <52DEA496.9000000@viagenie.ca> <52DEB873.1080500@cs.tcd.ie> <52DEC5C8.7080903@si6networks.com> <52E130A7.5050102@cisco.com>, <52E14FBB.1070901@si6networks.com>
In-Reply-To: <52E14FBB.1070901@si6networks.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB
Content-Language: en-GB
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US, en-GB
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 03 Feb 2014 08:34:38 -0800
Cc: 6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org, ipv6@ietf.org, draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses@tools.ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 21:58:58 -0000

is the secret key sent over th e network? at that point, it would stop being secret.

Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood
________________________________________
From: Fernando Gont [fgont@si6networks.com]
Sent: 23 January 2014 17:22
To: Eliot Lear; Stephen Farrell; Simon Perreault; The IESG
Cc: 6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org; ipv6@ietf.org; Wood L  Dr (Electronic Eng); draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On 01/23/2014 12:09 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>
> On 1/21/14, 8:08 PM, Fernando Gont wrote:
>>
>>> If keeping it, I'd say give the example and then add a
>>> security consideration that that interface might be
>>> vulnerable (e.g. 'cat /proc/net/eth0/rfcxxx-secret'
>> How about rather noting that the secret key should only be accessible by
>> the system administrator? (i.e., non-RFC2119 recommend that implementers
>> do the right thing :-) )
>
> I agree with the requirement but I think Stephen raises an important
> point, which is that it should be highlighted that the information is
> sensitive.  As such, implementations should constrain access to the
> information, to the extent practicable.  Furthermore, I understood
> Stephen's point also to be that the private key information should not
> be used for any other purpose.

It's not actually a private key in the sense of private/public key..
Just a secret key.

But yeah, I have no objections to adding some words on the topic. How
about this:

"Since the privacy of this system relies on the secrecy of the
secret_key parameter, implementations should constraint access to it to
the extent practicable (e.g., require superuser privileges to access
it). Furthermore, in order to prevent leakages of the secret_key, this
parameter should not be used for any other purposes than being a
parameter to the scheme specified in this document"

?

Thoughts?

Thanks!

Best regards,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492