Re: [Mip4] Does MIP support RegReq authentication without having to do timekeeping?

Ahmad Muhanna <amuhanna@awardsolutions.com> Thu, 14 March 2013 19:24 UTC

Return-Path: <amuhanna@awardsolutions.com>
X-Original-To: mip4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mip4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0929021F8DA8 for <mip4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:24:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aDw1EIi1MmBb for <mip4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:24:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod8og110.obsmtp.com (exprod8og110.obsmtp.com [64.18.3.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 125B221F8D86 for <mip4@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:24:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.awardsolutions.com ([66.142.250.98]) (using TLSv1) by exprod8ob110.postini.com ([64.18.7.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUUIj6tGaWcfaYFkA/mjp3i6WNe8lPfdm@postini.com; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:24:28 PDT
Received: from REDWOOD.usa.awardsolutions.com ([fe80::a1f1:7708:4a71:9fee]) by Redwood.usa.awardsolutions.com ([fe80::a1f1:7708:4a71:9fee%11]) with mapi id 14.01.0438.000; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:24:25 -0500
From: Ahmad Muhanna <amuhanna@awardsolutions.com>
To: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [Mip4] Does MIP support RegReq authentication without having to do timekeeping?
Thread-Index: AQHOIOVe6tN+JjF66kaY3dsRHs+8+5ilj/Dw
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 19:24:24 +0000
Message-ID: <3359F724933DFD458579D24EAC769098857A527E@Redwood.usa.awardsolutions.com>
References: <514206FE.7050807@gmail.com> <3359F724933DFD458579D24EAC769098857A51DC@Redwood.usa.awardsolutions.com> <51421CB9.1080100@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <51421CB9.1080100@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.25.208.42]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Mobile IPv4 Mailing List <mip4@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Mip4] Does MIP support RegReq authentication without having to do timekeeping?
X-BeenThere: mip4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobility for IPv4 <mip4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mip4>, <mailto:mip4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mip4>
List-Post: <mailto:mip4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mip4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4>, <mailto:mip4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 19:24:29 -0000

Okay, here an easier one BUT I am NOT sure if you will be able to get that without a change at the HA! :-)
Please remember the support of timestamp replay protection is Mandatory while the nonce is OPTIONAL.

In case the HA supports nonce, then the following is your best option:
1. Configure on the HA two different Security Associations that are indexed using two different SPIs. One with replay protection using timestamp and the other using nonce.

2. When the MR time fails, the MR uses the what mentioned before, i.e., it could use the last RRP timestamp, but uses the SPI which reference nonce as replay protection.

If HA does NOT support nonce, then NO solution my friend, at least that what I am thinking. :-)

Best Regards,
Ahmad


-----Original Message-----
From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:54 PM
To: Ahmad Muhanna
Cc: Mobile IPv4 Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Mip4] Does MIP support RegReq authentication without having to do timekeeping?

Sounds reasonable to use timestamp as usual and if it fails then try the nonce... but...

Does this behaviour require modification of the HA? (we are not able to modify it, but we can modify the MR).

Le 14/03/2013 19:44, Ahmad Muhanna a écrit :
> Hi Alex,
>
> As far as I recall, RFC2002 and all updates afterwards, allow the use 
> of nonce. Basically like a challenge.
>
>> From implementation prospective; I would allow both to coexist as
>> follows:
> 1. Both HA and MR uses timestamp as normal and no issue there.

Yes.

> 2. When the MR fails or start NOT to have a valid time, the MR should 
> have remembered the last RRP ID which is based on timestamp and use 
> that for Re-Registration.

Ok, this could be done.

> 3. At the HA, it should check timestamp first, if it passes then 
> timestamp continues to work; if it fails, the HA should check the 
> Re-Registration ID against the last ID that was sent in the last RRP, 
> if it is the same, the HA should allow the RRP to go through.

This is a modification to the HA implementation, isn't it?

Alex

>
> I Hope this helps!
>
> Cheers!
>
> Best Regards, Ahmad
>
> -----Original Message----- From: mip4-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:mip4-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexandru Petrescu Sent:
> Thursday, March 14, 2013 12:21 PM To: Mobile IPv4 Mailing List
> Subject: [Mip4] Does MIP support RegReq authentication without having 
> to do timekeeping?
>
> MIP4 participants,
>
> I would like to learn whether Mobile IPv4 spec supports an 
> authentication scheme for RegReq/RegRep which does not rely on 
> timekeeping.
>
> Let me explain why.
>
> We use a Mobile Router in a moving network that gets connected to the 
> Home Agent.  The Mobile Router's power supply may be turned off (its 
> battery dies out after an extended period of inactivity, like in a 
> vehicle).  At that point the MR looses its time.
>
> When it finally wakes up, it has to perform a Registration Req/Rep 
> with the HA, without assuming that its time is correct.  Or, the
> MIP4 regreq/regrep HA implementation that we use seems to rely on 
> having the right time, otherwise the registration fails.
>
> Under these conditions, is it possible to use an auth mechanism which 
> does not rely on timekeeping?
>
> Alex
>
> -- Mip4 mailing list: Mip4@ietf.org Web interface:
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4 Charter page:
> http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html Supplemental
> site: http://www.mip4.org/
>
>