IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: CGA Security improvement

Roland Bless <roland.bless@kit.edu> Thu, 06 August 2015 21:47 UTC

Return-Path: <roland.bless@kit.edu>
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 7319B1A8AC7 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 14:47:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.45
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 y8-C-7WWwIva for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 14:47:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de (iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de [141.3.10.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5FB81A8AC0 for <6man@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 14:47:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from i72vorta.tm.uni-karlsruhe.de ([141.3.71.26] helo=i72vorta.tm.kit.edu) by iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtp port 25 iface 141.3.10.81 id 1ZNT0k-0002Z9-Dx; Thu, 06 Aug 2015 23:47:38 +0200
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by i72vorta.tm.kit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E640B0058C; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 23:47:38 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <55C3D5F9.8060803@kit.edu>
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2015 23:47:37 +0200
From: Roland Bless <roland.bless@kit.edu>
Organization: Institute of Telematics, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.1) Gecko/20060111 Thunderbird/1.5 Mnenhy/0.7.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Hosnieh Rafiee <hosnieh.rafiee@huawei.com>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: CGA Security improvement
References: <814D0BFB77D95844A01CA29B44CBF8A7015D2C0A@lhreml504-mbs>
In-Reply-To: <814D0BFB77D95844A01CA29B44CBF8A7015D2C0A@lhreml504-mbs>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-ATIS-AV: ClamAV (iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de)
X-ATIS-Timestamp: iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de 1438897658.
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/tPfmKPf9vGFt9pxwlkUyxxdZFXg>
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 06 Aug 2015 21:47:52 -0000

Hi Hosnieh,

Am 31.07.2015 um 09:33 schrieb Hosnieh Rafiee:
> I would like to update draft-rafiee-rfc3972-bis-00 draft with the following content. What do you think about it? Any comments or questions? 

1) I still don't understand your "attack scenario"

  - https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rafiee-6man-cga-attack-01 is
    not clear enough. What is course of the attack precisely?

  - Two addresses A0 and A1 that only differ in the
    sec value (e.g., sec=0 and sec=1) are considered being
    different, i.e., A0 != A1. So your attacker that uses
    A0 instead of A1 has got a different address with a
    different public/private key pair.

  - CGA prevents _hijacking_ of IPv6 addresses only.

2) given the presumably small real world deployment of CGAs,
   I think there are currently more important problems this
   WG needs to solve first...

Regards,
 Roland

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email