Re: [lisp] Restarting last call on LISP threats

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Mon, 16 June 2014 18:43 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 122481A0161 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:43:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 FeFzbUPBuc-W for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:43:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA42E1A014E for <lisp@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:43:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 836BD24049A; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:43:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at maila2.tigertech.net
Received: from host-78-64-19-211.homerun.telia.com (host-78-64-19-211.homerun.telia.com [78.64.19.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E45CA240191; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:43:56 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <539F3AEB.4030201@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 14:43:55 -0400
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>, lisp@ietf.org
References: <d690563db20d4fca945b810a14f37090@CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <B3A9D234-A6A2-45DC-B8FA-623B3A86DCE8@gmail.com> <a7c188aabbfe41ef80645d2ee1d6df99@CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <E0485205-9FCD-46FC-B852-06259334A47C@gmail.com> <40ecc5d773874ecdbdc05763004acfa7@CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <A2225E25-FE9E-4F97-B86F-9C078BB6A312@gmail.com> <db040d02b9a3402c9e53e1ae6374b2bb@CO2PR05MB636.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <BEA94770-F16C-449E-BA44-3FC8E5DE1292@gmail.com> <5399D22A.2040207@joelhalpern.com> <5CAAEAE6-AF3E-4E27-8D73-FA8A64520379@gmail.com> <DB53B8D4-8E0E-4DEF-BE7A-579FD679EB66@gigix.net> <8f3ee88f9b9649359d5222d324568e07@CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <539F1582.3010406@joelhalpern.com> <539F3856.4060401@innovationslab.net>
In-Reply-To: <539F3856.4060401@innovationslab.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/LmwoX3mKXsaDRpn7MTdCy0iaafI
Subject: Re: [lisp] Restarting last call on LISP threats
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/>
List-Post: <mailto:lisp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 18:43:59 -0000

My understanding is that security oriented threat analyses documents do 
not generally, and the charter item for this document does not 
specifically, call out mitigations.  Mitigation is, as your comment 
suggests, a complex tradeoff as different mitigations have different 
costs and different efficacy.  So the tradeoff in using mitigation 
would, it seems to me, need to be in the document that proposes the 
mechanisms.

Yours,
Joel

On 6/16/14, 2:32 PM, Brian Haberman wrote:
> Let's just say I am commenting as an interest observer...
>
>
> On 6/16/14 12:04 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>> Personally, I don't see any need to analyse mitigations to discuss
>> classes of attacks.
>
> Is the above meant to imply that the lisp-threats document should not
> discuss the costs imposed by the mitigation technique?
>
> If not, will lisp-sec document the approaches to mitigating all the
> attacks listed in lisp-threats (and their perceived costs)?
>
> Regards,
> Brian
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> lisp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
>