Re: [lp-wan] [Last-Call] Secdir last call partial review of draft-ietf-lpwan-coap-static-context-hc-12
Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Fri, 21 February 2020 20:23 UTC
Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA87812007A; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 12:23:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 jA6iVltQZVxr; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 12:23:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (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 AC24D12006B; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 12:23:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 01LKNX3R014204 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 21 Feb 2020 15:23:35 -0500
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 12:23:32 -0800
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
Cc: secdir@ietf.org, lp-wan@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, draft-ietf-lpwan-coap-static-context-hc.all@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20200221202332.GC53538@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <158231113340.29033.17150460168186400041@ietfa.amsl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <158231113340.29033.17150460168186400041@ietfa.amsl.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lp-wan/VkbayZg6_XSZfY-2KKWWA6Dhod4>
Subject: Re: [lp-wan] [Last-Call] Secdir last call partial review of draft-ietf-lpwan-coap-static-context-hc-12
X-BeenThere: lp-wan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Low-Power Wide Area Networking \(LP-WAN\), also known as LPWA or Low-Rate WAN \(LR-WAN\)" <lp-wan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lp-wan>, <mailto:lp-wan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lp-wan/>
List-Post: <mailto:lp-wan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lp-wan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan>, <mailto:lp-wan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 20:23:44 -0000
Hi Paul, Thanks for doing the review and raising the potentially serious issues. On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 10:52:13AM -0800, Paul Wouters via Datatracker wrote: > > Review is partially done. Another assignment may be needed to complete it. > > Reviewer: Paul Wouters > Review result: Serious Issues > > I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's > ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the > IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the > security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat > these comments just like any other last call comments. > > I agree with the comments raised by the genart review by Theresa Enghardt. The > Security Section is just a reference to another document that specifies in its > own Security Consideration: > > As explained in Section 5, SCHC is expected to be implemented on top > of LPWAN technologies, which are expected to implement security > measures. > > This document explains that packets are wrapped in CoAP and then this document > can be used to compress fields, similar to the references document. But now > this is happening in the most outer layer, which the referenced document > basically states that in its Security Considerations, it assumes the outer > layer has some kind of LPWAN based security meassures in place. > > It seems these two drafts need some coordination to determine where, how and > which Security Considerations are relevant. It does seem like it, since CoAP is not guaranteed to be used over a physical medium with integrated security technologies (though many expected use cases do). > Additionally, I'm a bit worried about multiple layers doing compression. Can > this lead to security issues? If not, why not? > > Where is it sais that compression states need to be checked for bogus > instructions? How are these prevented? Think of the ever-decompressing zip file > hacks of the past. How are these DoS attacks prevented ? I think the "static context" nature of this compression mechanism prevents issues with near-infinite expansion, at least, though there would of course still be room for bugs when handling noncompliant input. -Ben > Other than this issue, I found Section 1 Introducion a bit confusing. It seems > to drop a reference to another document and then explain that other document, > without really talking about this document? Or if it does, it was not very > clear to me. > > I did not review this document for nits - my apologies but I ran out of time. > > > -- > last-call mailing list > last-call@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
- [lp-wan] Secdir last call partial review of draft… Paul Wouters via Datatracker
- Re: [lp-wan] [Last-Call] Secdir last call partial… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [lp-wan] [Last-Call] Secdir last call partial… Ana Minaburo