Re: [multipathtcp] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-mptcp-experience-06: (with COMMENT)

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

On 14/09/16 17:13, Olivier Bonaventure wrote:
> Stephen,
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> I was a bit sad that there was no reporting of
>> experiences with the security aspects of MPTCP.  Have
>> we really learned nothing worth saying about that?
>> Have we really seen no attacks on, or tailored to,
>> MPTCP? It seems odd that the answer to both questions
>> is "no."
> 
> There are already two RFC on security issues with MPTCP
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6181
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7430
> 
> We did not want to rediscuss those issues that are alreayd documented on
> the security of MPTCP itself.
> 
> Another point is the impact of MPTCP on existing IDS, firewalls and
> other types middleboxes that could only see a portion of the traffic.
> There have been blackhat presentations on this, e.g.
> 
> https://www.blackhat.com/docs/us-14/materials/us-14-Pearce-Multipath-TCP-Breaking-Todays-Networks-With-Tomorrows-Protocols.pdf
> 
> 
> I haven't seen deployment of those attacks, but could extend section 3.5
> or discuss this in a bit more details if you think that this would be
> useful.

If such text would be considered useful in the RFC,
then I'd be for it. I'm happy that the AD/chairs/editors
and WG figure that out. I'm equally happy to review if
someone proposes text.

Cheers,
S.


> 
> 
> Olivier
>