Re: [MEXT] re-direction attack on MCoA

[marcelo bagnulo braun <[e-mail]>]

right

El 01/02/2008, a las 11:33, RYUJI WAKIKAWA escribió:

> Hi All,
>
> Thanks for all your comments. I agree with George and see the  
> progress.
>
> I treated this action as a consensus.
> We will not include the Ben's solution in the MCoA and leave it to
> other work.
>
> thanks,
> ryuji
>
>
>
> On 2008/01/31, at 20:08, George Tsirtsis wrote:
>
>> I am of course also interested in this work. I guess we already have
>> enough people to get the ball rolling on this.
>>
>> Thanks
>> George
>>
>> On Jan 31, 2008 10:59 AM, Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]
>>> wrote:
>>> Hi Marcelo,
>>> I am willing to work on a generic MIPv6 threats document along
>>> with the other interested people.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Suresh
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: marcelo bagnulo braun [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>> Sent: January 31, 2008 11:13 AM
>>> To: Wassim Haddad
>>> Cc: Julien Laganier; [e-mail]
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: [MEXT] re-direction attack on MCoA
>>>
>>>
>>> El 30/01/2008, a las 19:16, Wassim Haddad escribió:
>>>>
>>>> => As there is a clear interest in the redirection attack on the HA
>>>> side, I volunteer to do some work on this one.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think the work should be general to all residual threats on MIP as
>>> George mentioned, i think this would be more interesting since it
>>> would allow us to put the different threats in perspective and  
>>> figure
>>> out which ones we should address.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Wassim H.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> El 30/01/2008, a las 18:19, Wassim Haddad escribió:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Marcelo,
>>>>>> IMHO, this topic has to be included as a new item in the new
>>>>>> charter and
>>>>>> should not be limited to MCoA.
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Wassim H.
>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
>>>>>>> Pascal,
>>>>>>> The question at this point is the following one: do you think
>>>>>>> that this threat should be addressed in the MCoA draft itself?
>>>>>>> comments?
>>>>>>> Regards, marcelo
>>>>>>> El 30/01/2008, a las 10:09, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) escribió:
>>>>>>>> I agree with Wassim on both mails.
>>>>>>>> There's also the situation where the MN/MR might be fooled by
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> visited network into believing that the CoA (or its prefix if a
>>>>>>>> network
>>>>>>>> is attacked as opposed to a host) is on the visited link. DSMIP
>>>>>>>> is also
>>>>>>>> exposed, in particular with IPv4 CoAs.
>>>>>>>> There are many scenarios that do not involve high mobility were
>>>>>>>> a 3-way
>>>>>>>> or a 4-way handshake could be used to verify the CoA. We have
>>>>>>>> proposed
>>>>>>>> such a test in section 6 of the RRH draft that uses a triggered
>>>>>>>> 2nd BU
>>>>>>>> flow to verify the CoA in the first one:
>>>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-nemo-reverse-routing-header-07#
>>>>>>>> section-6
>>>>>>>> Pascal
>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>> From: Wassim Haddad [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>>>>>> Sent: mercredi 30 janvier 2008 09:32
>>>>>>>>> To: Benjamin Lim
>>>>>>>>> Cc: 'Julien Laganier'; [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [MEXT] re-direction attack on MCoA
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Benjamin Lim wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> All in all, what I am trying to say is that tracing only
>>>>>>>>>> limits the
>>>>>>>>>> effect of the attack from escalating further and not
>>>>>>>>>> preventing it.
>>>>>>>>> => which (again) also perfectly applies to a single CoA.
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> Wassim H.
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> MEXT mailing list
>>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> MEXT mailing list
>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> MEXT mailing list
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> MEXT mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> MEXT mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> MEXT mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> MEXT mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext

_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
[e-mail]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
From [e-mail]  Fri Feb  1 10:15:15 2008
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
X-Original-To: [e-mail]
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9599928C169;
	Fri,  1 Feb 2008 10:15:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.762
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.762 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_BAD_ID=2.837, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id jDZooEDgnCjM; Fri,  1 Feb 2008 10:15:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 705103A693A;
	Fri,  1 Feb 2008 10:15:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: [e-mail]
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30F0B3A69B2
	for <[e-mail]>; Fri,  1 Feb 2008 10:15:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id LatYHeQOFF10 for <[e-mail]>;
	Fri,  1 Feb 2008 10:15:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp02.uc3m.es (smtp02.uc3m.es [163.117.176.132])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A8D93A6930
	for <[e-mail]>; Fri,  1 Feb 2008 10:13:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es (chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es 
	[163.117.139.76])(using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))(No
	client certificate requested)by smtp02.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 
	A2B822EBD92;Fri,  1 Feb 2008 19:15:23 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915)
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 19:15:22 +0100
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915)
X-imss-version: 2.049
X-imss-result: Passed
X-imss-scanInfo: M:B L:E SM:2
X-imss-tmaseResult: TT:1 TS:-6.9168 TC:1F TRN:10 TV:5.0.1023(15704.000)
X-imss-scores: Clean:100.00000 C:0 M:0 S:0 R:0
X-imss-settings: Baseline:1 C:1 M:1 S:1 R:1 (0.0000 0.0000)
Cc: Julien Laganier <[e-mail]>
Subject: [MEXT] MEXT review of Diameter Mobile IPv6: Support for Network
	Access Server to Diameter Server Interaction draft
X-BeenThere: [e-mail]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>,
	<mailto:[e-mail]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:[e-mail]>
List-Help: <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>,
	<mailto:[e-mail]?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]

Hi,

i would like to request feedback from the MEXT community on the  
following draft

Diameter Mobile IPv6: Support for Network Access Server to Diameter  
Server Interaction
draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated-07.txt

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated-07

Even though this is not a MEXT document, it is clearly MIP6 related,  
so it would be important that MEXT WG feel comfortable with it.

Thanks, marcelo
_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
[e-mail]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext