Re: [manet] Message integrity and message mutability (was RE: draft-ietf-manet-aodvv2-13 review - a couple of big ticket Items)
Jiazi YI <ietf@jiaziyi.com> Mon, 25 April 2016 15:29 UTC
Return-Path: <yi.jiazi@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37F2812D1B9 for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Apr 2016 08:29:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.093
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.093 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, TRACKER_ID=1.306] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 nvCBOWCUeV7p for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Apr 2016 08:29:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x22d.google.com (mail-wm0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1FCD12B03B for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Apr 2016 08:29:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id 127so23955581wmz.0 for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Apr 2016 08:29:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc; bh=9aS/wffKSSk25MQnXG7hkGWRUeO6ggl//yI7zzDmZeE=; b=pzF7BNkyget1YgBD+LVtDtM3t8OPUGAq4vebyeyMK67fiIST7cghU/qqxor/woj6Gr y/IM2LVfzWkmbsOH5/o8fp43a39l7kEJSWYxA9Ad3XZokEh8YnHoFGz3PY6Fg/vdcafA NfVNZPnQtwd9QfjFE5Xpbo8TxNrg5FuOuE0fbaProiKja5FAzQhRCSWb3JoQjsxfx6an B0wd5CGSWEadKiq01A6EodrCTm1wfHlVEwcpYdv16kdoDkhHuDX4BhkauHmlNc8fp4TZ 4D+1B3MEprrvcoXir1ZTOiCdiVVHVrtB+KZvF9TenYQvh++o0hECxusCByLwczNaqiJu 6/rA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=9aS/wffKSSk25MQnXG7hkGWRUeO6ggl//yI7zzDmZeE=; b=bJoyx1ioEnMZU5ZpW2fsd26m2OBdQk5y53PbaEAZeyXxd5AP+e6pmJXoLwKqOpO5xE uDlNs3E77gXyBIQlojJU+VDerm4A5tHyt4jNGC8exD8Vdo3Ht2v7JH8rXs17Yk7CKWJF r9oyyjsc/9Htmfk3JVJmNoBUhtv2g2S5v1fofj7NkplAfXzQtBsdqmZO0KStMV8DZS20 C7zDOhYi014Un+Qh9dJoWU77Wp8WKwYTXAGwwZ/9X6g+I/yQicUJvcZ2GUP2/4mhmWNC xIlY+CCOex7UORS3bxetzR1XFV9CFOk8hIbLlKFGIJzu+4q7Xf4Kx0FraRVUodimpkJf fwAQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FUIQC1iAQCCT71HqYNC/cm71+2IIXAPhOYkMGf9UAj4fwAJYHr6Bcqu81jFDMKTreiaix8Ty93R4GLn+Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.28.16.17 with SMTP id 17mr12377664wmq.17.1461598186144; Mon, 25 Apr 2016 08:29:46 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: yi.jiazi@gmail.com
Received: by 10.194.153.166 with HTTP; Mon, 25 Apr 2016 08:29:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAAePS4APf3PsKdbzOZv1kd9oAP_3AUDPxoM9oor=NkjBGExFbg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D9237E267@GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net> <1F5AB0F1-0B92-4A66-A08F-A2BF8B414D9F@thomasclausen.org> <B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D9237E2C8@GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net> <5EE270D1-30EF-42A9-BF11-7F4267967AC0@fu-berlin.de> <B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D9237E324@GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net> <3F51EFE1-7D89-49E9-8B1B-87C02D7A705D@thomasclausen.org> <B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D9237E356@GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net> <0E2F32E3-A198-48BA-A712-F9F59F8BBAA0@thomasclausen.org> <CAAePS4D3A3g7NbZ4jND04xhJ2Q+gbGP-7sXZ4p4eC55=ejiWLw@mail.gmail.com> <B0317B9B-09AA-48A5-90C2-2A8DA51C8281@mnemosyne.demon.co.uk> <CAAePS4DCHy6R_Ht7KF3MoeZ7ML+BawnobC92VLQZyS5FaA7vdQ@mail.gmail.com> <B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D923B12C9@GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net> <CAN1bDFwyTFatXOkuY+N2czFPqVmoygRjSCRG2bubS=sBhLqE7A@mail.gmail.com> <CAAePS4Botm8kfQXuJczHC_rYfjtisDrTk5Vdb5m2LafP2qkTTg@mail.gmail.com> <B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D923B1556@GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net> <84C7FCA8-B122-4534-ACB7-0C799F14A569@thomasclausen.org> <CA+-pDCdy=9Bea4nwQ5k8hqAPTJ04RgvdeDqHaj6MXeRnFj-3dg@mail.gmail.com> <B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D923B15E3@GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net> <CAAePS4APf3PsKdbzOZv1kd9oAP_3AUDPxoM9oor=NkjBGExFbg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 17:29:45 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: ge9JwNLvAs1vKTPkey8FBNUKHUE
Message-ID: <CAN1bDFzv0R9UzykYwm-9JK7OVYYHeNzxXYNWRsx87T7ODNmVDw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jiazi YI <ietf@jiaziyi.com>
To: Victoria Mercieca <vmercieca0@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1145ad26b08c6e053150d8b5"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/thVAchzN0pxs81vAKL8QMw4ir8s>
Cc: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <chris.dearlove@baesystems.com>, Christopher Dearlove <chris@mnemosyne.demon.co.uk>, Mobile Ad Hoc Networks mailing list <manet@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [manet] Message integrity and message mutability (was RE: draft-ietf-manet-aodvv2-13 review - a couple of big ticket Items)
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/manet/>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 15:29:55 -0000
Hi, Maybe I missed a bit here: If only the desired receiver of the multicast RREP (carrying a destination address) can reply to the multicast RREP, why not using unicast directly? best Jiazi On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Victoria Mercieca <vmercieca0@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Chris, > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) < > chris.dearlove@baesystems.com> wrote: > >> I has to go back to Victoria’s summary here. It says: >> >> >> >> 2) C creates the RREP. Since it doesnt know if the link to B is >> bidirectional, it includes the AckReq (an address to indicate that it >> expects to receive a RREP_Ack from B). >> >> >> >> That doesn’t actually indicate if that’s C’s address or B’s address being >> included. I’d assumed it was C’s address. Your comment makes sense if it’s >> B’s address. Reading again, I think you’re probably right. But only >> probably. Can we confirm that. >> >> >> > > C creates the RREP. The included AckReq address is B's address. The RREP > then gets multicast. > B receives it, sees that it own address is marked as the AckReq address, > and sends an ack unicast back to C. > Anyone else who receives the multicast RREP from C does not send the Ack, > since the AckReq address does not match any of their interface addresses. > > >> I assume you meant that the RREP (not RREP_Ack) is multicast. There’s a >> bit of a chicken and egg problem here. We do know how we want to unicast. >> > > The RREP is multicast (when we dont know if the link is bidirectional), > the RREP_Ack is always unicast. > > Kind regards, > Vicky. > > >> >> *-- * >> >> >> >> >> *Christopher Dearlove Senior Principal Engineer BAE Systems Applied >> Intelligence Laboratories * >> *__________________________________________________________________________ >> * >> *T*: +44 (0)1245 242194 | *E: *chris.dearlove@baesystems.com >> >> BAE Systems Applied Intelligence, Chelmsford Technology Park, Great >> Baddow, Chelmsford, Essex CM2 8HN. >> www.baesystems.com/ai >> >> BAE Systems Applied Intelligence Limited >> Registered in England & Wales No: 01337451 >> >> Registered Office: Surrey Research Park, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7YP >> >> >> >> *From:* Justin Dean [mailto:bebemaster@gmail.com] >> *Sent:* 25 April 2016 15:26 >> *To:* Thomas Heide Clausen >> *Cc:* Dearlove, Christopher (UK); Christopher Dearlove; Mobile Ad Hoc >> Networks mailing list; Victoria Mercieca >> *Subject:* Re: [manet] Message integrity and message mutability (was RE: >> draft-ietf-manet-aodvv2-13 review - a couple of big ticket Items) >> >> >> >> >> >> **** WARNING **** >> >> *This message originates from outside our organisation, either from an >> external partner or the internet.* >> >> * Consider carefully whether you should click on any links, open any >> attachments or reply. For information regarding **Red Flags** that you >> can look out for in emails you receive, click here >> <http://intranet.ent.baesystems.com/howwework/security/spotlights/Documents/Red%20Flags.pdf>.* >> * If you feel the email is suspicious, please follow this process >> <http://intranet.ent.baesystems.com/howwework/security/spotlights/Documents/Dealing%20With%20Suspicious%20Emails.pdf>.* >> >> The address in the RREP_Ack may be required due to the RREP_Ack being >> multicast as there is not yet a verified unicast route installed yet. >> Going to double check if I'm remembering correctly. >> >> Justin >> >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 10:18 AM, <ietf@thomasclausen.org> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> I must admit that while I have reviewed the protocol several times, I’ve >> not been digging that deep into the protocol functioning to catch this >> issue of how invasive the protocol operations are when forwarding a >> message: there were other “major” issues to address (and which obscured the >> details), so as a first order: thank you Victoria, for having called >> attention to this. >> >> >> >> To the substance of these emails. >> >> >> >> I am afraid that I do not understand the use of inserting validity TLVs >> while in-flight, into a message. Actually, I am dubious for both the >> originator inserting this (how can the originator of a message know how >> “latter parts of the path” will be have”) except if we are talking >> duty-cycling of devices and inserting “the remaining time that I am going >> to be up before I suspend”. Intuitively, that would also assume fairly long >> duty cycles “I am up for tens of seconds”, which I am not sure are actually >> realistic. And, as Chris says in another email, this is trading off “the >> ability to do security” for an unknown/untested feature — which I think is >> the wrong trade-off. >> >> >> >> On he topic of “needing to put an address in” for RREP-ACK, I must admit >> that this seems roundabout. I can see three issues here: >> >> >> >> o I am not sure that adding an address vs. a flag may not have to do with >> the “multiple interfaces/ >> >> multiple addresses” discrimination mechanics of the protocol? I haven’t >> worked it through, though, >> >> but that would be a guess. >> >> >> >> o The end-to-end topology diffusion mechanism should not need to be >> concerned with the >> >> “bidirectionally check” of a local link (in part, as it encumbers >> security, but not only). In short, a >> >> flag or an address, both are (equally) bad. >> >> >> >> o A cleaner mechanism would be a “hello mechanism”, not necessarily as >> NHDP, but a “when >> >> forwarding a RREQ/RREP, trigger a 3-way hello exchange, if the link is >> estimated to be of a >> >> type which potentially can be unidirectional”. There is another benefit >> to doing that, see the end >> >> of this email. >> >> >> >> Either way, I do not like the notion of fusing >> metrics-and-link-bidirectionality-detection any more than I like fusing >> global-topology-diffusion-and-link-bidirectionality-detection. >> >> >> >> The solution all this is, to me, threefold >> >> >> >> 1) Factor out the bidirectionally check in a (triggered) neighbour >> detection mechanism >> >> (triggered HELLO message) >> >> >> >> 2) Remove the “validity time TLVs”, since they add complexity for no >> perceivable benefits >> >> >> >> 3) Use the security model that we’ve discussed previously, where (only) >> the metrics change per hop. >> >> >> >> Since we’re discussing bi-directionality of links here, and the necessity >> of a mechanism for handling these, I want to call attention to a related >> issue, as I hinted previously. >> >> >> >> The abstract states that the protocol: >> >> >> >> ...is intended for use by mobile routers in wireless, multihop >> >> networks. >> >> >> >> Section 5 paragraph 4 of the document, however, reads: >> >> >> >> Assuming link metrics are symmetric, the cost of the routes installed >> >> in the Local Route Set at each router will be correct. While this >> >> assumption is not always correct, calculating incoming/outgoing >> >> metric data is outside of scope of this document. >> >> >> >> I do not know of *any* wireless systems, where the assumption that “link >> metrics are symmetric” actually holds. Consequently, the conclusion in the >> quoted paragraph: >> >> >> >> calculating incoming/outgoing >> >> metric data is outside of scope of this document. >> >> >> >> Is not an acceptable design choice. >> >> >> >> While this protocol may not want to “calculate if for this link the >> metrics is 4 or 5”, the protocol must be able to convey and distinguish >> that “the metric from A to B is 4, and the metric from B to A is 19”. >> >> >> >> This is a “related issue” since the solution may (as with the >> bi-directionality check) be in the triggered neighbour detection mechanism: >> that exchange could, if designed carefully, be used to probe for and convey >> metrics information, also. >> >> >> >> Hope this helps, >> >> >> >> >> >> Thomas >> >> >> >> On 25 Apr 2016, at 15:27, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) < >> chris.dearlove@baesystems.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> Assuming for the moment that everyone will need an RREP-Ack or won’t >> (let’s come back to that) why do C and B need to put an address in as an >> RREQ-Ack request? Why not a flag, because the address will be included as >> the IP sending address - and we know 5444 is required to pass that on. >> (It’s used by NHDP as well.) Then we don’t need to change the RREP, it will >> have a flag set or not, and won’t change (in this regard). >> >> >> >> Now let’s consider do we know whether we can set a fixed flag. First I’d >> say there are two cases - you’ve got a firm control on what’s going on in >> your network, or it’s one of unknown parties and behaviour (consistent with >> specification). In the former case you only want one setting, for example >> no-Ack if running NHDP or your MAC layer tells you about bidirectionality, >> Ack otherwise. In the latter case, I think you just always want an Ack. So >> both cases get you to the same place. >> >> >> >> Should that not be an acceptable argument (though I think it’s good for >> where we are - in fact always Ack is close) then at flag is a step better, >> it’s a fixed location to change. However it would be better in that case if >> the two things to change (metric and ack flag) were together. But that has >> its own issues, so I won’t go there. >> >> >> >> *--* >> >> >> >> >> *Christopher Dearlove Senior Principal Engineer BAE Systems Applied >> Intelligence Laboratories * >> *__________________________________________________________________________ >> * >> *T*: +44 (0)1245 242194 | *E: *chris.dearlove@baesystems.com >> >> BAE Systems Applied Intelligence, Chelmsford Technology Park, Great >> Baddow, Chelmsford, Essex CM2 8HN. >> www.baesystems.com/ai >> >> BAE Systems Applied Intelligence Limited >> Registered in England & Wales No: 01337451 >> >> Registered Office: Surrey Research Park, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7YP >> >> >> >> *From:* Victoria Mercieca [mailto:vmercieca0@gmail.com >> <vmercieca0@gmail.com>] >> *Sent:* 25 April 2016 14:15 >> *To:* Jiazi YI >> *Cc:* Dearlove, Christopher (UK); Christopher Dearlove; Mobile Ad Hoc >> Networks mailing list >> *Subject:* Re: [manet] Message integrity and message mutability (was RE: >> draft-ietf-manet-aodvv2-13 review - a couple of big ticket Items) >> >> >> >> >> >> **** WARNING **** >> >> *This message originates from outside our organisation, either from an >> external partner or the internet.* >> >> * Consider carefully whether you should click on any links, open any >> attachments or reply. For information regarding **Red Flags** that you >> can look out for in emails you receive, click here >> <http://intranet.ent.baesystems.com/howwework/security/spotlights/Documents/Red%20Flags.pdf>.* >> * If you feel the email is suspicious, please follow this process >> <http://intranet.ent.baesystems.com/howwework/security/spotlights/Documents/Dealing%20With%20Suspicious%20Emails.pdf>.* >> >> Hi Jiazi, >> >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Jiazi YI <ietf@jiaziyi.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) < >> chris.dearlove@baesystems.com> wrote: >> >> With regard to your validity time point, we here have a tradeoff. If you >> allow that feature, it significantly impacts on the approach that was >> coming together on as best you can end to end encryption. >> >> >> >> So the question is, is this a feature that’s really wanted? Unfortunately >> I think we know that the answer to that is, we don’t know because we don’t >> have any experience. My view would be that in the tradeoff of an untested >> feature (unless I’m wrong about that) and the security complication, >> security wins and drop the feature. If there is some real requirement, then >> there’s a discussion. (Questions like how often the intermediate routers >> actually have any knowledge - typically links break for unexpected rather >> than expected reasons. Andan intermediate router could possibly use a >> validity time to influence its behaviour.) Note that dropping the ability >> of intermediate routers to modify/set still allows validity times per route >> to be set at endpoints. >> >> >> >> I agree with Chris' concern. >> >> The ValidityTime is optional, which makes the integrity protection hard. >> Furthermore, it gives a potential attack vector: as all the routers in a >> path will take the shortest validityTime, a compromised router can set the >> the validityTime to a very short value, which will make the route installed >> along the path became invalid (very soon). >> >> >> >> On the other hand, I'm not sure this option will give us much help. Chris >> mentioned much knowledge intermediate router would have to decide this >> value (and how much sense the value would make). >> >> Another issue is, a route to a destination might be updated by different >> sources. For example, in the network below: >> >> >> >> A----B-----C >> >> >> >> A first establish a route to B with long validity time. Then A initiates >> a route discovery to C. C tends to set a short validity time, which will >> make the route between B and A expire earlier than expected. >> >> Is this a problem? Maybe yes, maybe no -- I'm not sure it's considered or >> not. >> >> >> >> >> >> Not sure I follow here. >> >> Currently, the validity time of the route between A and B would not >> affected by a short validity time of a route between A and C. Validity >> times are per-route, and the route A-B and the route A-C are separate. >> >> If we switched to a validity time per neighbor (so that we can keep >> validity time separate from route advertisements) as I mentioned in the >> email below, then the validity of a route between A and C would be affected >> if there was a short validity time between A and B. But, if B will only >> route for a certain amount of time, then the route between A and C will of >> course be affected. Is it best to know in advance that there's a time >> limit, or just deal with RERRs when they happen? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> With regard to the acknowledgements, the problem (with regard to >> security) comes from trying to do two jobs with the same message - end to >> end route advertisement and hop by hop acknowledgement. I understand the >> reasons - saving bytes and message types. (I would have to study the >> protocol really hard to identify if any message types can be folded >> together and recognised by content rather than type efficiently. This I do >> not expect to do.) Again a tradeoff. This one is in discussion space, >> though that needs people who understand both sides of the issue, including >> the details of the bidirectionality mechanism. Of course, as has been said, >> we need one of those. >> >> >> >> I haven't finished my review of the latest draft, and I don't get the >> necessity of AckReq and the corresponding multicast RREP yet. >> >> If possible, this "optional" field should be avoided. >> >> >> >> >> To give an overview of AckReq and RREP: >> >> Since AODVv2 requires bidirectional links, this is the way to determine >> if a link is bidirectional. >> >> A----B----C >> >> >> 1) A sends RREQ, B forwards it, C receives the RREQ. B and C both install >> a route to OrigAddr but they dont yet know if it's valid because they dont >> know if the link to their next hop is available in the reverse direction. >> >> 2) C creates the RREP. Since it doesnt know if the link to B is >> bidirectional, it includes the AckReq (an address to indicate that it >> expects to receive a RREP_Ack from B). >> >> 3) B receives the RREP, installs a route to TargAddr and marks it as >> valid, since it knows the link to C is bidirectional, because the RREQ went >> in one direction and the RREP came in the other. B also sends the RREP_Ack >> to C and forwards the RREP to A (and might change the message to indicate >> its own AckReq - ie that it requires an ack from A). >> >> 4) C receives the RREP_Ack from B, and therefore knows that B received >> the RREP, therefore the link is bidirectional. C can then mark its route to >> OrigAddr as valid. >> >> 5) Similarly, A receives the RREP, installs the route to TargAddr and >> sends an RREP_Ack to B. >> >> 6) B receives the RREP_Ack and marks its route to OrigAddr as valid. >> >> >> >> Alternatively, in step 2, if C knows the link to B is bidirectional >> (perhaps from some earlier route discovery), it doesnt need to put the >> AckReq in the RREP. Then in step 3, since B doesnt know if the link to A is >> bidirectional, it changes the message to add the AckReq address, in order >> to get an RREP_Ack from A. >> >> If we want to avoid changing the message, we'll need to look at >> forwarding the RREP as-is, and creating a second message to solicit an >> RREP_Ack, in order to verify that the link is bidirectional before marking >> the route to OrigAddr as valid. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Victoria. >> >> >> >> >> >> regards >> >> >> >> Jiazi >> >> >> >> >> >> *--* >> >> >> >> >> *Christopher Dearlove Senior Principal Engineer BAE Systems Applied >> Intelligence Laboratories * >> *__________________________________________________________________________ >> * >> *T*: +44 (0)1245 242194 <%2B44%20%280%291245%20242194> | *E: * >> chris.dearlove@baesystems.com >> >> BAE Systems Applied Intelligence, Chelmsford Technology Park, Great >> Baddow, Chelmsford, Essex CM2 8HN. >> www.baesystems.com/ai >> >> BAE Systems Applied Intelligence Limited >> Registered in England & Wales No: 01337451 >> >> Registered Office: Surrey Research Park, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7YP >> >> >> >> *From:* Victoria Mercieca [mailto:vmercieca0@gmail.com] >> *Sent:* 23 April 2016 10:55 >> *To:* Christopher Dearlove >> *Cc:* ietf@thomasclausen.org; Dearlove, Christopher (UK); Mobile Ad Hoc >> Networks mailing list >> >> >> *Subject:* Re: [manet] Message integrity and message mutability (was RE: >> draft-ietf-manet-aodvv2-13 review - a couple of big ticket Items) >> >> >> >> >> >> **** WARNING **** >> >> >> >> *This message originates from outside our organisation, either from an >> external partner or the internet. Consider carefully whether you should >> click on any links, open any attachments or reply. For information >> regarding **Red Flags* >> * that you can look out for in emails you receive, click here >> <http://intranet.ent.baesystems.com/howwework/security/spotlights/Documents/Red%20Flags.pdf>. >> If you feel the email is suspicious, please follow this process >> <http://intranet.ent.baesystems.com/howwework/security/spotlights/Documents/Dealing%20With%20Suspicious%20Emails.pdf>.* >> >> Hi Chris, >> >> >> >> These have both been in the draft in some form since before I got >> involved... but I'll do my best to explain. >> >> >> >> - For Validity Time, its a way to advertise that you would only support >> the route contained in the message for a certain period of time. The >> originator might use this, but the draft was written to allow any >> intermediate node to be able to add it or update it too. The route created >> in the Local Route Set has an expiration time associated with it, based on >> the received validity time. >> >> - For the AckReq address, its so that you can add into a RREP a request >> for an acknowledgement, so that you don't have to have a different message >> type altogether for working out whether links to neighbors are >> bidirectional, and also, since you only care about bidirectionality on >> routes that are being set up, you dont need to constantly monitor all >> neighbors. >> >> >> >> >> >> In order to avoid the potential AckReq-related changes to each message, >> maybe we do need to introduce a different message specifically for this. We >> could maybe use RREP_Ack to both request and acknowledge? It means an extra >> message of control traffic that needs to be sent, maybe one extra message >> per hop on the path of a RREP, but it could still be limited to neighbors >> which have participated in the route discovery rather than monitoring all >> neighbors at all times. >> >> >> >> This message could maybe also include "I'm happy to route anywhere for a >> certain amount of time", sort of like willingness in OLSR/OLSRv2. So >> instead of having a validity time per route, its a validity time per >> neighbor. Then, for RREQ and RREP, only the metric value would change in >> transit, as discussed. However, that leads to some issues with deciding >> what a route's expiration time is. You might know how long the next hop >> router is valid for, but what if a router beyond that, which was also part >> of the route, had a lower validity time? You couldn't determine the real >> validity time. Do we remove the route expiration time altogether to avoid >> this issue? In which case, we would have to rely on RERR messages being >> sent for routes which become invalid when the neighbor's validity time has >> expired? So neighbor validity time expiration is treated the same as a link >> break. >> >> >> >> What do you think? >> >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Victoria. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 1:09 AM, Christopher Dearlove < >> chris@mnemosyne.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >> Pretty much all of the discussion has been assuming only a metric value >> change. With multiple things changing many of the ideas go out of the >> window. That reinforces the point about not making specifications now that >> might turn out to be wrong for ICVs. >> >> >> >> Ignoring how this misunderstanding happened, I'll start by asking why. >> Metric changing I understand. Why the other two? (there's a partial >> explanation of one). What alternatives have people implemented in >> comparable protocols? >> >> -- >> >> Christopher Dearlove >> >> christopher.dearlove@gmail.com (iPhone) >> >> chris@mnemosyne.demon.co.uk (home) >> >> >> On 23 Apr 2016, at 00:26, Victoria Mercieca <vmercieca0@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> Continued in this thread because the other one seems to be more about TLV >> types and metric type numbers, whereas this is about >> regeneration/forwarding. >> >> >> >> To recap, in the current draft, there are 3 things that might change at >> each hop: >> - the metric value (happens in RREQ and RREP), >> - adding/changing Validity Time using the Validity Time TLV (can happen >> in RREQ and RREP), >> - adding an address (and corresponding value in the AddressType TLV to >> indicate how to interpret the address) to indicate the address from which >> an RREP_Ack is expected, to accomplish the bidirectionality check (can >> happen in RREP). >> >> If we define a certain portion of the message as immutable and include >> the ICV to verify that part, end to end: >> - The metric value would be excluded from the ICV since it needs changing >> at each hop. >> - Would adding a Validity Time TLV at an intermediate hop be acceptable? >> The whole TLV could be removed in order to calculate the ICV? >> >> - Would adding an address cause issues for the ICV, because it's in the >> address block? Could the rule be "if it contains an AckReq address, remove >> it (and the corresponding value in the AddressType TLV), before checking >> the ICV", is that OK? Or would we need to avoid touching the ICV'ed part of >> the message altogether, maybe put the AckReq address in a separate Address >> Block, with an extra AddressType TLV following that address block? Is there >> a way to accomplish this? >> >> >> >> Also, to be thorough, do we need to consider RERR messages while we >> discuss regeneration vs forwarding? >> >> - RERR (sent when a link breaks) is a way of saying "I've lost my route >> so I'm telling others" and "you were my next hop, so now I've also lost my >> route, I'll tell others", etc. It's going to be tailored at each step to >> include the relevant routes that got deleted, it's not one message being >> sent end-to-end like RREQ and RREP are. >> >> - However, RERR (sent when a source of traffic is sending data on a route >> which comes through you, and you want to tell the Packet Source's router to >> delete the route) could be seen as an end-to-end message which all >> intermediate routers learn from, similar to RREQ and RREP. It reports one >> route, and doesn't need changing at intermediate hops, so could be >> protected with ICV. >> >> - Would it be OK to only require a message ICV if a PktSource address was >> included, i.e. when the message needs to go via a number of intermediate >> hops to PktSource's router? All other RERRs are intended to be one-hop >> messages, which may in turn prompt other one-hop messages, etc..., and a >> packet ICV might be more appropriate? >> >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Victoria. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 5:26 PM, <ietf@thomasclausen.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 17 Mar 2016, at 18:17, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) < >> chris.dearlove@baesystems.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> Yes, I meant AODVv2, thanks for the catch. >> >> >> >> So is your (Thomas) proposed base specification a hop count only metric? >> >> >> >> No, the would be silly as base specification, given that hop count mostly >> is useless. >> >> >> >> As base specification I would simply say “Include a Metric Type Message >> TLV with a value field, and a 7182 Message TLV & Timestamp” as we do in >> OLSRv2 (with the appropriate verbiage as to generation and processing). >> >> >> >> With the message generated by the originator of the RREQ/RREP and *not* >> deconstructed/reconstructed/reordered (as is the risk with “regeneration) >> allows knowing that it would be *only* that metric field being modified >> (other than hop count/limit) for when eventually writing up the extension. >> >> >> >> (Actually doesn’t the current specification only define hop count, or has >> that changed in latest draft?) >> >> >> >> No. That is one of the issues I raise in my original. For some reason, it >> cites RFC6551, which is a ROLL document and which has in its abstract that: >> >> >> >> Low-Power and Lossy Networks (LLNs) have unique characteristics >> >> compared with traditional wired and ad hoc networks that require the >> >> specification of new routing metrics and constraints. >> >> >> >> I.e. this document cites a metric document which clearly claims to be >> inapplicable in ad hoc networks. I note that this is another thing I’ve >> raised for years without seeing it attempted resolved. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Thomas >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *--* >> >> >> >> >> *Christopher Dearlove Senior Principal Engineer BAE Systems Applied >> Intelligence Laboratories * >> *__________________________________________________________________________ >> * >> *T*: +44 (0)1245 242194 <%2B44%20%280%291245%20242194> | *E: * >> chris.dearlove@baesystems.com >> >> BAE Systems Applied Intelligence, Chelmsford Technology Park, Great >> Baddow, Chelmsford, Essex CM2 8HN. >> www.baesystems.com/ai >> >> BAE Systems Applied Intelligence Limited >> Registered in England & Wales No: 01337451 >> >> Registered Office: Surrey Research Park, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7YP >> >> >> >> *From:* ietf@thomasclausen.org [mailto:ietf@thomasclausen.org >> <ietf@thomasclausen.org>] >> *Sent:* 17 March 2016 17:10 >> *To:* Dearlove, Christopher (UK) >> *Cc:* Lotte Steenbrink; Mobile Ad Hoc Networks mailing list >> *Subject:* Re: [manet] Message integrity and message mutability (was RE: >> draft-ietf-manet-aodvv2-13 review - a couple of big ticket Items) >> >> >> >> >> >> **** WARNING **** >> >> >> >> *This message originates from outside our organisation, either from an >> external partner or the internet. Consider carefully whether you should >> click on any links, open any attachments or reply. For information >> regarding **Red Flags* >> * that you can look out for in emails you receive, click here >> <http://intranet.ent.baesystems.com/howwework/security/spotlights/Documents/Red%20Flags.pdf>. >> If you feel the email is suspicious, please follow this process >> <http://intranet.ent.baesystems.com/howwework/security/spotlights/Documents/Dealing%20With%20Suspicious%20Emails.pdf>.* >> >> >> >> On 17 Mar 2016, at 18:04, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) < >> chris.dearlove@baesystems.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> OK, so we have a message that mutates by: >> >> - Modifying hop count/limit. >> >> - Modifying a metric value. >> >> Anything else? >> >> >> >> As mutating (other than hop count/limit) messages aren’t covered by 5444 >> or any derivative document (but only recommended against, not banned) that >> you may need to make the message otherwise immutable (no deconstruction and >> rebuilding, other than guaranteed unchanging) that would have to be >> specified by AODVv2. (Easy to say, but needs saying.) >> >> >> >> With you so far. >> >> >> >> Then that information is not in a guaranteed fixed location given by a >> simple offset. So any signature algorithm that finds it and ignores it or >> aggregates on it is specific to OLSRv2. >> >> >> >> Surely you mean AODVv2 >> >> >> >> So standard 7182 ICVs don’t do the job, you would need an AODVv2 >> specialised variant. Which is the sort of thing that the message specific >> TLV space is there for, I’d be strongly against a “but ignore the value of >> this specific TLV should it occur” being in the general space. However it >> can easily be defined by reference to 7182 (“this TLV is like that TLV, >> except if an X TLV is present, set its value field to zero”). >> >> >> >> Messy, but could work. >> >> >> >> Not that messy, actually, although clearly not as nice as “fixed offset”. >> >> >> >> That said, I am arguing for the base spec being: >> >> >> >> “make the message otherwise immutable (no deconstruction and >> rebuilding, other >> >> than guaranteed unchanging)” which is afforded by forwarding >> >> >> >> + >> >> >> >> RFC7182 Timestamps and ICVs. >> >> >> >> + >> >> >> >> RFC7183 style text bringing it all together. >> >> >> >> The “aggregated signatures around mutable field” would very be an >> experimental extension. >> >> >> >> What I object to is, if the base spec specifically renders such >> extensions impossible >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *--* >> >> >> >> >> *Christopher Dearlove Senior Principal Engineer BAE Systems Applied >> Intelligence Laboratories * >> *__________________________________________________________________________ >> * >> *T*: +44 (0)1245 242194 <%2B44%20%280%291245%20242194> | *E: * >> chris.dearlove@baesystems.com >> >> BAE Systems Applied Intelligence, Chelmsford Technology Park, Great >> Baddow, Chelmsford, Essex CM2 8HN. >> www.baesystems.com/ai >> >> BAE Systems Applied Intelligence Limited >> Registered in England & Wales No: 01337451 >> >> Registered Office: Surrey Research Park, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7YP >> >> >> >> *From:* Lotte Steenbrink [mailto:lotte.steenbrink@fu-berlin.de >> <lotte.steenbrink@fu-berlin.de>] >> *Sent:* 17 March 2016 16:48 >> *To:* Dearlove, Christopher (UK) >> *Cc:* ietf@thomasclausen.org; Mobile Ad Hoc Networks mailing list >> *Subject:* Re: [manet] Message integrity and message mutability (was RE: >> draft-ietf-manet-aodvv2-13 review - a couple of big ticket Items) >> >> >> >> >> >> **** WARNING **** >> >> >> >> *This message originates from outside our organisation, either from an >> external partner or the internet. Consider carefully whether you should >> click on any links, open any attachments or reply. For information >> regarding **Red Flags* >> * that you can look out for in emails you receive, click here >> <http://intranet.ent.baesystems.com/howwework/security/spotlights/Documents/Red%20Flags.pdf>. >> If you feel the email is suspicious, please follow this process >> <http://intranet.ent.baesystems.com/howwework/security/spotlights/Documents/Dealing%20With%20Suspicious%20Emails.pdf>.* >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> Am 17.03.2016 um 17:44 schrieb Dearlove, Christopher (UK) < >> chris.dearlove@baesystems.com>: >> >> >> >> Good point about whether you just pass on one cost or a set of costs. As >> I said, not looked at details - I will, when time permits. One cost is much >> easier, and yes, it reduces the fixed size aggregated signatures problem to >> “just” one of computational load. >> >> >> >> For the record, Thomas’ understanding is correct; the cost is one >> aggregated value. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Lotte Steenrbink >> >> >> >> >> >> *--* >> >> >> >> >> *Christopher Dearlove Senior Principal Engineer BAE Systems Applied >> Intelligence Laboratories * >> *__________________________________________________________________________ >> * >> *T*: +44 (0)1245 242194 <%2B44%20%280%291245%20242194> | *E: * >> chris.dearlove@baesystems.com >> >> BAE Systems Applied Intelligence, Chelmsford Technology Park, Great >> Baddow, Chelmsford, Essex CM2 8HN. >> www.baesystems.com/ai >> >> BAE Systems Applied Intelligence Limited >> Registered in England & Wales No: 01337451 >> >> Registered Office: Surrey Research Park, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7YP >> >> >> >> *From:* ietf@thomasclausen.org [mailto:ietf@thomasclausen.org >> <ietf@thomasclausen.org>] >> *Sent:* 17 March 2016 16:38 >> *To:* Dearlove, Christopher (UK) >> *Cc:* Mobile Ad Hoc Networks mailing list >> *Subject:* Re: Message integrity and message mutability (was RE: [manet] >> draft-ietf-manet-aodvv2-13 review - a couple of big ticket Items) >> >> >> >> >> >> **** WARNING **** >> >> >> >> *This message originates from outside our organisation, either from an >> external partner or the internet. Consider carefully whether you should >> click on any links, open any attachments or reply. For information >> regarding **Red Flags* >> * that you can look out for in emails you receive, click here >> <http://intranet.ent.baesystems.com/howwework/security/spotlights/Documents/Red%20Flags.pdf>. >> If you feel the email is suspicious, please follow this process >> <http://intranet.ent.baesystems.com/howwework/security/spotlights/Documents/Dealing%20With%20Suspicious%20Emails.pdf>.* >> >> >> >> On 17 Mar 2016, at 17:30, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) < >> chris.dearlove@baesystems.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> I appreciate Thomas’s comments about the limitations of message >> regeneration, but I would be a bit less absolute. >> >> >> >> The issues over end to end authentication and more advanced signatures >> are valid. I need to read the given reference on aggregate signatures to >> increase my knowledge (thanks for it), but my understanding of the >> possibilities in this field may offer a solution to the problem, but with >> some other issues (possibly including a new type of TLV). >> >> >> >> But the hop count/limit point I don’t fully agree with, you can >> regenerate with an incremented/decremented count/limit, which leaves the >> ability to prevent messages propagating indefinitely, including expanding >> ring searches, and retains the ability to use RFC 5497 interval and >> validity times that might be useful with an expanding ring search (or might >> not). >> >> >> >> But the key issue is that AODVv2 wants to accumulate metrics. I still >> haven’t got to the bottom of many details here, but let’s for the moment >> just consider that conceptually. >> >> >> >> It’s hard to handle end to end. Charlie’s draft attempts to do an end to >> end of some information, not this information. I’m not sure if that’s >> useful (and the specialised format is better avoided if possible). Other >> approaches are hop by hop (might as well use packet signatures) and shared >> key (might as well go hop by hop). Pairwise signatures for each pair of >> routers I’m discounting as scaling terribly. In the interests of >> completeness let’s mention not accumulating metrics, which puts us back to >> hop count and that’s not ideal either. >> >> >> >> I don’t think there is an ideal solution. (I like ideas I’ve seen about >> aggregating, but that has some issues of its own, even apart from >> computational load.) I’d love to be proved wrong - someone with the perfect >> solution to come along. >> >> >> >> Which means that either we make an arbitrary choice - which will be >> disagreed with, but needs discussing first - or create something flexible. >> Unfortunately flexible in that regard constrains in others, e.g. some >> (many? most?) aggregating signatures need fixed data sizes (which we can do >> by defining a TLV that “fills up” with hop count, but that has a cost too). >> >> >> >> I have been told by people much more well versed in this than I in >> cryptology, that the correct answer is “some”. >> >> >> >> That said, "AODVv2 wants to accumulate metrics” — does that mean that the >> message grows as it is being forwarded, and that the recipient of a >> RREQ/RREP will know the individual costs of each path segment? My >> understanding is, that the recipient will get “the sum the costs of each >> path segment” which should be fitting within a fixed size? >> >> >> >> Thomas >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Sorry, no answers, just comments. And I’m not addressing Thomas’s later >> points here. >> >> >> >> *--* >> >> >> >> >> *Christopher Dearlove Senior Principal Engineer BAE Systems Applied >> Intelligence Laboratories * >> *__________________________________________________________________________ >> * >> *T*: +44 (0)1245 242194 <%2B44%20%280%291245%20242194> | *E: * >> chris.dearlove@baesystems.com >> >> BAE Systems Applied Intelligence, Chelmsford Technology Park, Great >> Baddow, Chelmsford, Essex CM2 8HN. >> www.baesystems.com/ai >> >> BAE Systems Applied Intelligence Limited >> Registered in England & Wales No: 01337451 >> >> Registered Office: Surrey Research Park, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7YP >> >> >> >> *From:* manet [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org <manet-bounces@ietf.org>] *On >> Behalf Of *ietf@thomasclausen.org >> *Sent:* 17 March 2016 16:00 >> *To:* Mobile Ad Hoc Networks mailing list >> *Subject:* [manet] draft-ietf-manet-aodvv2-13 review - a couple of big >> ticket Items >> >> >> >> >> >> **** WARNING **** >> >> >> >> *This message originates from outside our organisation, either from an >> external partner or the internet. Consider carefully whether you should >> click on any links, open any attachments or reply. For information >> regarding **Red Flags* >> * that you can look out for in emails you receive, click here >> <http://intranet.ent.baesystems.com/howwework/security/spotlights/Documents/Red%20Flags.pdf>. >> If you feel the email is suspicious, please follow this process >> <http://intranet.ent.baesystems.com/howwework/security/spotlights/Documents/Dealing%20With%20Suspicious%20Emails.pdf>.* >> >> **** **WARNING ****** >> EXTERNAL EMAIL -- This message originates from outside our organization. >> >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> Apologies for not having gotten this done sooner - day-job leaving few >> spare cycles. >> >> >> >> I’ve previously offered reviews and comments, and some of those have been >> addressed in the latest I-D — others have not, but should be. I recall that >> there was some mail attempting to rebut parts of the review, and I will dig >> it out and reply to that. >> >> >> >> With that being said, I have reviewed the latest version of the document, >> and full details will be forthcoming. There’re a couple of >> big-ticket/architectural items that I want to address up front, as I >> believe that before we have those hammered out, it will be useless to go >> into details. Note, I do not claim that this is an exhaustive list of “big >> ticket items”, but that’s as far as I have gotten in thinking this through. >> >> >> >> I also bring these up as they are items that have been brought up >> repeatedly over the past years, but not resolved nor discussed. >> >> >> >> *Loops* >> >> Just to bring this out: I share Chris’ worry about conflicting and >> concurrent statements from the authors on “There are no loops possible” and >> “We need to fix two situations where loops can occur” and “we are still >> investigating some loop conditions” >> >> >> >> I particularly worry that this is not a discussion had in public, but >> apparently in some other forum… >> >> >> >> >> >> *Intermediate Route Replies, and all of section 10* >> >> Section 10 contains a set of “vaguely specified extensions”, which is >> incoherent with the intended status indicated for this document. >> >> >> >> Specifically, and this is not unrelated to the point about loops above, >> intermediate RREPs (section 10.3) are a potential source for loops. >> >> >> >> Expanding Ring Multicast (section 10.1) is not documented in a way that >> can be implemented (and also, see “Forwarding-vs-regeneration” below, it is >> in the present form of this protocol impossible), etc. >> >> >> >> >> >> *Forwarding-vs-regeneration* >> >> Recent exchanges on the list made me understand that protocol control >> messages are *not* forwarded, but are consumed at each hop, then a new >> message with (almost-but-not-quite) the same content is generated and >> transmitted. >> >> >> >> I have thought some more on this (& read some of the exchanges on the >> list on this topic by Chris, Ulrich, and others), and I am convinced that >> this is not the right way to go, *at least* for the following reasons: >> >> >> >> >> >> o *It renders the hop-limit/hop-count fields in the >> RFC5444 message header useless.* >> >> This would not be bad if the functionality >> offered by those fields was not useful >> >> — sadly, it is. For example, for scope limited >> flooding (expanding ring search, and >> >> such) which may be of interest, and which require >> hop-limit. >> >> A hop-count field may also provide a “cheap” (in >> terms of overhead) additional piece >> >> of information to use conjunctively with a “real” >> metric. >> >> >> >> The only practical solution would be to >> re-introduce these functions by way of inserting a >> >> MessageTLV — which (i) is not specified in this >> document, and (ii) which would just >> >> serve to render messages bigger than strictly >> needed. >> >> >> >> Scope limited flooding does seem to be a >> necessary requirement, if for no >> >> other reason than to prevent information from >> “circulating forever in the network”. >> >> >> >> o *It makes end-to-end authentication unnecessarily >> hard.* >> >> I think Chris called this out already, but it >> bears repeating: S generates a message >> >> (say, a RREQ), and includes an ICV calculated >> over the content of the message. >> >> For any recipient to be able to validate the ICV, >> the message has to be exactly >> >> the same — not just in content, but in structure >> — as what was generated. >> >> >> >> “Regenerating” rather than “forwarding” messages >> means, that the intermediate >> >> router “regenerating” the RREQ may chose a >> different structure (e.g., include TLVs >> >> in a different order). >> >> >> >> The proposal from >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-perkins-manet-aodv-e2esec-00 >> >> is to add constraints on (i) the set of elements >> to include in a signature and (ii) the >> >> order of these elements. >> >> >> >> One problem with that approach is (i): if an >> extension adds a message TLV, or an >> >> Address TLV, to a message, then that will not be >> “covered” by the proposed e2esec TLV. >> >> Rather for *each* extension developed, an >> “updates e2esec” clause needs to be done. >> >> >> >> I’d say that this approach would be prone to >> errors — and add entropy to the process >> >> of designing protocol extensions. The >> alternative, a message being generated by the >> >> source and *forwarded* (as we do in OLSRv2, for >> example) would allow ICV TLVs >> >> (even, allow reuse of those specified for OLSRv2) >> for covering a message and >> >> extensions. >> >> >> >> “But what about the metrics value which will >> change on each hop”, you may say? >> >> Fortunately, that is relatively easy to handle: >> simply zero out the value of that TLV when >> >> generating or verifying the ICV MessageTLV. And >> use Packet-TLVs for hop-by-hop >> >> authentication, if needed (but, see below). >> >> >> >> o *It prevents the use of more clever/advanced >> signature schemes/ICVs* >> >> Aggregate signature algorithms ( >> https://crypto.stanford.edu/~dabo/papers/aggsurvey.pdf) >> >> exist, and an interesting use-case can be found >> in also reactive protocols, allowing verifying >> >> not “just” the end points, but also the >> intermediaries (again, with the appropriate “zero out” >> >> discussed above, or something smarter). >> >> Regeneration of messages, rather than forwarding, >> renders that impossible (or, if used, >> >> updating to >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-perkins-manet-aodv-e2esec-00) >> >> >> >> There are other reasons, but the above are those that jump at me as >> immediate show-stoppers. >> >> >> >> I do honestly not see what possible benefit there is from “regeneration” >> — but I see very clear inconveniences, and security is not the least of >> these. Insisting on “regeneration” requires development of “non-general >> workarounds” as pointed out above. >> >> >> >> *Security Considerations* >> >> This is an always thorny subject. When OLSRv2 was going through the >> process we got a thorough education in how little we knew about security >> from the SEC-ADs, and had to spend about a year or so developing RFC7183. >> The bottom line is, that this protocol needs its “RFC7183 equivalent”, >> either as part of the main document, or as an independent document. >> currently, that is not the case. >> >> >> >> A minima, looking at BCP72 and BCP107 — taking inspiration from RFC7183 >> might be aw good idea, as that was the most recent that went through the >> SEC AD. Regardless of how, however, a “mandatory to implement” security >> mechanism most be specified (I think the right term was “MUST implement, >> SHOULD use”), in sufficient detail to ensure interoperable implementations. >> >> >> >> As an example, both [RFC6130] and [RFC7181] set out that that: >> >> >> >> On receiving a ... message, a router MUST first check if the >> >> message is invalid for processing by this router >> >> >> >> and then proceed to give a number of conditions that, each, will lead to >> a rejection of the message as "badly formed and therefore invalid for >> processing” — a list which RFC7183 then amended. That gave a “hook” for >> RFC7183 for inserting “rejection”. Idem for message generation. >> >> >> >> If I was to do RFC7181/RFC6130 today, I would include that directly into >> the protocol specifications. It turned out to be more overhead (and slow >> down publication anyways) to do it as separate documents. >> >> >> >> Secondly, we need to be a lot more rigid in terms of what ICVs, >> Timestamps, etc. are added/removed, and what that brings. >> >> >> >> For example (with the assumption that messages are *forwarded* and *not* >> regenerated), this could be one option: >> >> >> >> o When a RREQ, RREP message is >> generated, add an ICV Message TLV, which is calculated <this way> >> >> …(take inspiration from RFC7183 here) >> >> >> >> ... >> >> [Message clipped] >> _______________________________________________ >> manet mailing list >> manet@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> manet mailing list >> manet@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >> >> >> >> ******************************************************************** >> This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended >> recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended >> recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender. >> You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or >> distribute its contents to any other person. >> ******************************************************************** >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> manet mailing list >> manet@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> manet mailing list >> manet@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> manet mailing list >> manet@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > >
- [manet] Message integrity and message mutability … Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [manet] Message integrity and message mutabil… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [manet] Message integrity and message mutabil… ietf
- Re: [manet] Message integrity and message mutabil… ietf
- Re: [manet] Message integrity and message mutabil… Lotte Steenbrink
- Re: [manet] Message integrity and message mutabil… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [manet] Message integrity and message mutabil… ietf
- Re: [manet] Message integrity and message mutabil… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [manet] Message integrity and message mutabil… ietf
- Re: [manet] Message integrity and message mutabil… Victoria Mercieca
- Re: [manet] Message integrity and message mutabil… Victoria Mercieca
- Re: [manet] Message integrity and message mutabil… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [manet] Message integrity and message mutabil… Jiazi YI
- Re: [manet] Message integrity and message mutabil… Victoria Mercieca
- Re: [manet] Message integrity and message mutabil… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [manet] Message integrity and message mutabil… ietf
- Re: [manet] Message integrity and message mutabil… Justin Dean
- Re: [manet] Message integrity and message mutabil… Justin Dean
- Re: [manet] Message integrity and message mutabil… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [manet] Message integrity and message mutabil… ietf
- Re: [manet] Message integrity and message mutabil… Justin Dean
- Re: [manet] Message integrity and message mutabil… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [manet] Message integrity and message mutabil… Thomas Heide Clausen
- Re: [manet] Message integrity and message mutabil… Justin Dean
- Re: [manet] Message integrity and message mutabil… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [manet] Message integrity and message mutabil… Justin Dean
- Re: [manet] Message integrity and message mutabil… Victoria Mercieca
- Re: [manet] Message integrity and message mutabil… Justin Dean
- Re: [manet] Message integrity and message mutabil… Jiazi YI
- Re: [manet] Message integrity and message mutabil… Justin Dean
- Re: [manet] Message integrity and message mutabil… Jiazi YI
- Re: [manet] Message integrity and message mutabil… Victoria Mercieca
- Re: [manet] Message integrity and message mutabil… Victoria Mercieca
- Re: [manet] Message integrity and message mutabil… Jiazi YI
- Re: [manet] Message integrity and message mutabil… Victoria Mercieca
- Re: [manet] Message integrity and message mutabil… Justin Dean
- Re: [manet] Message integrity and message mutabil… Henning Rogge
- Re: [manet] Message integrity and message mutabil… Thomas Heide Clausen
- Re: [manet] Message integrity and message mutabil… Jiazi YI