Re: [manet] DLEP-18 Security Considerations

Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com> Tue, 19 January 2016 09:14 UTC

Return-Path: <hrogge@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A6911ACDA4 for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 01:14:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=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 9Tx5Z6L8RP71 for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 01:14:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-x22f.google.com (mail-lb0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22f]) (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 760101ACDA2 for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 01:14:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lb0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id cl12so142231114lbc.1 for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 01:14:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=Lu6vXcq+4nmwJT5jpsYQA6IpfCp8ZWxfXM43J7XodUA=; b=Kv1R9B7BXgC5d2QZ+nGufT5rF03Tmbs6WNIqD9zztiG54VEDc1DHeZSqRdOqlfHnEr ES9vvb4aUh0a3wlhh/tqFCJ5Y8pcAdOU7Syh/mdRCAemG5N2RKiJf3e81TLSrHUVt/PR IZusF/jh2ttwFEugEPk/ZzQz06xRAf/IIsG+mLo4kJDBzdxqvxsdwF873xstVHcKE8PQ Nx3tHyxk5edBPVu1H9Uzg1jh19QKUtU6KEaN++8DPq3K2aKDE/cy4VKUv0PMWVKJNFry H0xbF9/LXfynwlQP9rMLg+A44S46CpFMUyyUMsUkgSh1SmR23CZEuQ6SpBPP8Ss5wgWN nTaA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=Lu6vXcq+4nmwJT5jpsYQA6IpfCp8ZWxfXM43J7XodUA=; b=fGPjR8eEaGk97gwqm5NK88s2C58scn5GhBGhk7zG+C5/48BfaGOklBHVKVM3w0R9lz VMy70uiodjP9QtwOnLp3wLgmnKcMJfq2Z1BKh5Oaxa7BvOi7T4hardNVdUkpCq98zhdH Ud9k0H3FO9GBI6qK2PV8Rib7UjfJbSzjHvZgdFsl962wcvJAQ+9PyaqTP7s19jJ1MWsM 4p+RAm62fauHsQm+7uupJIdUQdRx4vIqmcRzCyxL7XbFJ+8JhkVfg0NXsFRHAQc1upKq iGEEguwUEYrHvu0i9GaZ/Df9lzkz5Kdo8FzwsGEp/mwO5d0sNBlUmyGn7Bu9J0nygH80 cMnw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnv1MSCZlae3GTuPeyC/MhnMiZWvPdRPKecDxtg9Mf4oMlJPn8bnwqmESK+EWCLglbKSlyoPOBB4wzIRsjEkrlaWXDTmA==
X-Received: by 10.112.147.161 with SMTP id tl1mr9769641lbb.4.1453194857765; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 01:14:17 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.161.77 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 01:13:48 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CALtoyo=6zEWqj8kC=JHb1=6sKD+ktCOWmnU+rzbNGhrkAwMfzQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALtoyo=6zEWqj8kC=JHb1=6sKD+ktCOWmnU+rzbNGhrkAwMfzQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 10:13:48 +0100
Message-ID: <CAGnRvuqzBBWf+pBSK4UTkDmNiZwK8ctergn6LCbWOK2KvPh-SQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stan Ratliff <ratliffstan@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/zvrkdGeYAhUBQfgV2hkW7dQU6v4>
Cc: MANET IETF <manet@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [manet] DLEP-18 Security Considerations
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 09:14:23 -0000

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 1:51 AM, Stan Ratliff <ratliffstan@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello WG,
>
> As requested in the email thread earlier today, here's a snapshot of what we
> currently have in the upcoming DLEP-18 draft wrt security. We've put an
> additional paragraph in the Assumptions section (Sec. 2.1) that says:
>
>    The reliance on MAC addresses by DLEP forces the assumption that
>    participating DLEP peers are on a single segment (either physical or
>    logically, via tunneling protocols) at Layer 2.  DLEP further assumes
>    that security of the implementations (e.g., authentication of
>    stations, encryption of traffic, or both) is dealt with by by
>    utilizing Layer 2 security techniques.
>
>
> Additionally, here is the text in the "Security Considerations":
>
> 12.  Security Considerations
>
>    The potential security concerns when using DLEP are:
>
>    1.  An attacker might pretend to be a DLEP peer, either at DLEP
>        session initialization, or by injection of messages once a
>        session has been established, and/or
>
>    2.  DLEP data items could be altered by an attacker, causing the
>        receiving implementation to inappropriately alter its information
>        base concerning network status.
>
>    Since DLEP is restricted to operation over a single (possibly
>    logical) hop at layer 2, implementations requiring authentication
>    and/or encryption of traffic MUST take steps to secure the Layer 2
>    link.
>
>    To avoid potential denial of service attack, it is RECOMMENDED that
>    implementations using the Peer Discovery mechanism maintain an
>    information base of hosts that persistently fail Session
>    Initialization having provided an acceptable Discovery signal, and
>    ignore Peer Discovery signals from such hosts.
>
>    This specification does not address security of the data plane, as it
>    (the data plane) is not affected, and standard security procedures
>    can be employed.

Maybe we could also mention that the same MAC layer security
mechanisms that can protect the DLEP control traffic would also
protect the radio-router DATA plane traffic.

Henning Rogge