[netlmm] Question on security model
"DE JUAN HUARTE FEDERICO" <Federico.De_Juan_Huarte@alcatel-lucent.fr> Tue, 11 September 2007 14:03 UTC
Return-path: <netlmm-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IV6Kc-00022z-2W; Tue, 11 Sep 2007 10:03:10 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IV6Ka-00022r-D5 for netlmm@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Sep 2007 10:03:08 -0400
Received: from smail5.alcatel.fr ([62.23.212.27]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IV6KY-0005TQ-PO for netlmm@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Sep 2007 10:03:08 -0400
Received: from FRVELSBHS05.ad2.ad.alcatel.com (frvelsbhs05.ad2.ad.alcatel.com [155.132.6.77]) by smail5.alcatel.fr (8.13.4/8.13.4/ICT) with ESMTP id l8BE2Nij012833; Tue, 11 Sep 2007 16:02:28 +0200
Received: from FRVELSMBS12.ad2.ad.alcatel.com ([155.132.6.37]) by FRVELSBHS05.ad2.ad.alcatel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Tue, 11 Sep 2007 16:02:45 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 16:02:44 +0200
Message-ID: <319D54578EAC3147BA8CC78DAB5467A501399A24@FRVELSMBS12.ad2.ad.alcatel.com>
In-Reply-To: <6FC4416DDE56C44DA0AEE67BC7CA437116A57C2B@zrc2hxm2.corp.nortel.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Question on security model
Thread-Index: Acfzu9R6l4QFQXIEQAuS3CKNgDr0GgADN/XAAAMPMJAAHO22sA==
References: <Pine.GSO.4.63.0708070000100.13701@irp-view13.cisco.com><0MKp8S-1IIKcu1WNe-0005rE@mrelay.perfora.net><01e801c7f0c1$80e341c0$d4f6200a@amer.cisco.com><46E4B02C.5010101@azairenet.com><6FC4416DDE56C44DA0AEE67BC7CA4371169E8EDD@zrc2hxm2.corp.nortel.com> <46E55CA3.6040103@azairenet.com> <319D54578EAC3147BA8CC78DAB5467A501399A13@FRVELSMBS12.ad2.ad.alcatel.com> <6FC4416DDE56C44DA0AEE67BC7CA437116A57C2B@zrc2hxm2.corp.nortel.com>
From: DE JUAN HUARTE FEDERICO <Federico.De_Juan_Huarte@alcatel-lucent.fr>
To: Ahmad Muhanna <amuhanna@nortel.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Sep 2007 14:02:45.0061 (UTC) FILETIME=[6D52BF50:01C7F47C]
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.51 on 155.132.188.13
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 52f402fbded34a6df606921f56b8bdd8
Cc: netlmm@ietf.org
Subject: [netlmm] Question on security model
X-BeenThere: netlmm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETLMM working group discussion list <netlmm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm>, <mailto:netlmm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/netlmm>
List-Post: <mailto:netlmm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netlmm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm>, <mailto:netlmm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: netlmm-bounces@ietf.org
Hi Ahmad, you're right that I was shamelessly abusing of the thread I apologize for that: I've changed the subject this time As I said, I understand that the security model has already been discussed and the decision has been to go with a per-node SA I would appreciate if anybody could send me a pointer to any record capturing the discussion that led to this decision More concretely, I would like to find out: - (first and most important) how the threat of a compromised MAG is addressed with the per-node SA model? - did the discussion take into account the fact that MAG and LMA may be located in different administrative domains? - did the discussion take place before or after the decision to move away from DT solution to PMIP? Thanks federico -----Message d'origine----- De : Ahmad Muhanna [mailto:amuhanna@nortel.com] Envoyé : lundi 10 septembre 2007 20:08 À : DE JUAN HUARTE FEDERICO; Vijay Devarapalli Cc : netlmm@ietf.org Objet : RE: [netlmm] Issue: Auth Option support Hi Federico, The issue of using a per-Node SA has been discussed long time ago and reached consensus. This thread is not about the use of Per-Node vs. Per-MN SA. It is about relaxing the mandate of the use IPsec to "MUST implement" and SHOULD use" That is it. I Hope this address your concern. Regards, Ahmad > -----Original Message----- > From: DE JUAN HUARTE FEDERICO > [mailto:Federico.De_Juan_Huarte@alcatel-lucent.fr] > Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 12:44 PM > To: Vijay Devarapalli; Muhanna, Ahmad (RICH1:2H10) > Cc: netlmm@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [netlmm] Issue: Auth Option support > > Hi, > > I am slowly catching up with NETLMM and I acknowledge that in some > aspects (e.g. security model) I'm definitely late > > I understand from this email that, in this group it has already been > decided to go for a per-node security model I followed the discussion > about the security model in a PMIP solution in a given forum (Wimax) > some years ago, and then it was considered that a per-node security > model was was not sufficient The main argument I remember is the > threat of the MAG being compromised and indiscriminately allocating > resources from the LMA This is especially worrisome when the the MAG > and the LMA belong to 2 different administrative domains Has this > problem been addressed in this group? > > Thanks > > federico > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Vijay Devarapalli [mailto:vijay.devarapalli@azairenet.com] > Envoyé : lundi 10 septembre 2007 17:03 À : Ahmad Muhanna Cc : > netlmm@ietf.org Objet : Re: [netlmm] Issue: Auth Option support > > Ahmad, > > I don't believe the security model of using just one security > association between the MAG and the LMA for protecting the proxy BU > and Proxy BAck changes irrespective of whether IPsec or RFC 4285 is > used. So > I don't agree with the suggested change. > > Vijay > > Ahmad Muhanna wrote: > > > >> Subject: Re: [netlmm] Issue: Auth Option support > >> > >> Sri, > >> > >> I agree with "SHOULD" for using IPsec and "MUST" for > supporting IPsec > >> on the MAG and the LMA. > >> > >> If thats the consensus, we need to modify a few sentences in the > >> draft. > >> > >> In section 4, replace > >> > >>> The signaling messages, Proxy Binding Update and Proxy Binding > >>> Acknowledgement, exchanged between the mobile access > >> gateway and the > >>> local mobility anchor MUST be protected using IPsec > >> [RFC-4301] and > >>> using the established security association between them. The > >>> security association of the specific mobile node for which the > >>> signaling message is initiated is not required for > >> protecting these > >>> messages. > >> with > >> > >> The signaling messages, Proxy Binding Update and Proxy Binding > >> Acknowledgement, exchanged between the mobile access > gateway and > >> the > >> local mobility anchor MUST be protected using security > >> associations > >> established between them. The security association of > the specific > >> mobile node for which the signaling message is initiated is not > >> required for protecting these messages. > >> > >> We need the MUST above since we have to say that the proxy BU and > >> proxy BAck must be protected, irrespective of whether > IPsec or some > >> other mechanism is used. > > > > [Ahmad] > > Hi Vijay, > > > > As far as I remember, the whole security concept of using a > per-Node > > SA for PMIPv6 was based on the use of IPsec. Although, I > see why you > > proposed the text but I still see a problem here. For example, the > > above text allows the use of an authentication option > similar to FA-HA > > AE to secure the P-BU/P-BA. > > > > Now, since allowing a per-Node SA to be used in PMIPv6 was based on > > the use of IPsec, I believe we clearly need to keep that as part of > > the spec text. > > > > What about the following slight modification to what you > just proposed: > > > > The signaling messages, Proxy Binding Update and Proxy Binding > > Acknowledgement, exchanged between the mobile access > gateway and the > > local mobility anchor MUST be protected using a > security association > > established between them. If IPsec is used, the security > > association > > > > of the specific mobile node for which the signaling message is > > initiated > > is not required for protecting these messages. > > > > Thanks, > > Ahmad > > > >> Add one sentence that says > >> > >> The mobile access gateway and the local mobility anchor MUST > >> implement IPsec for protecting the Proxy Mobile IPv6 signaling > >> messages [RFC-4301]. > >> > >> The paragraph that comes after already uses "SHOULD" for using ESP. > >> > >>> IPsec ESP [RFC-4303] in transport mode with mandatory integrity > >>> protection SHOULD be used for protecting the signaling > messages. > >>> Confidentiality protection of these messages is not required. > >> Hope that is sufficient. > >> > >> Vijay > >> > >> > >> Sri Gundavelli wrote: > >>> I want some comments on this issue raised by Alper. > >>> > >>> > >>> Also, if I interpret Sec 5.1 [3775], the IPSec is being > >> mandated, only > >>> the use of IPsec ESP is optional. > >>> > >>> -------- > >>> 5.1. Binding Updates to Home Agents > >>> > >>> The mobile node and the home agent MUST use an IPsec security > >>> association to protect the integrity and authenticity of > >> the Binding > >>> Updates and Acknowledgements. Both the mobile nodes > and the home > >>> agents MUST support and SHOULD use the Encapsulating > >> Security Payload > >>> (ESP) [6] header in transport mode and MUST use a > >> non-NULL payload > >>> authentication algorithm to provide data origin authentication, > >>> connectionless integrity and optional anti-replay > >> protection. Note > >>> that Authentication Header (AH) [5] is also possible but > >> for brevity > >>> not discussed in this specification. > >>> ------- > >>> > >>> > >>> I'm confused, should the draft say > >>> > >>> "Both LMA and MAG MUST implement IPsec" and "all the signaling > >>> messages SHOULD be protected using IPSec". > >>> > >>> Will this ok, when reviewed by the security folks ? > >>> > >>> or mandate IPsec for this specification and let other draft > >> relax this > >>> in the presence of an alternative approach ? > >>> > >>> Please comment. > >>> > >>> > >>> Sri > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Alper Yegin [mailto:alper.yegin@yegin.org] > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 1:41 AM > >>>> To: 'Sri Gundavelli'; netlmm@ietf.org > >>>> Subject: RE: [netlmm] Issue: Auth Option support > >>>> > >>>>> The issue was related to the use of MUST clause in > specifying the > >>>>> IPSec requirement for Proxy Mobile IPv6 protocol. Alper was > >>>>> suggesting that we relax that requirement and > potentially leave a > >>>>> room for Auth Option support in future. > >>>> Actually, I didn't mean it specifically for Auth Option. > It can be > >>>> anything. > >>>> Given that the security is handled by a separate protocol, > >> why lock > >>>> it down to "IPsec", when some other protocol (Auth > Option being one > >>>> example) cannot > >>>> be used. > >>>> > >>>>> But, as most people agreed and as supported by Jari, this can > >>>> My understanding was the opposite, especially about Jari's > >> statement. > >>>>> always be changed in future when the support for new security > >>>>> mechanisms such as Auth Option are defined for Proxy > >> Mobile IPv6 and > >>>>> that specific document can always modify this requirement. > >>>>> So, no changes will be made to the document on this issue. > >>>> What if Auth Option is good enough as written? > >>>> What if a document in another SDO defines the > alternative security > >>>> mechanism? > >>>> > >>>> For the type of interop we are seeking in IETF, "MUST > >> implement" is > >>>> good enough. "MUST use" is not necessary. > >>>> > >>>> Alper > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Regards > >>>>> Sri > >>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> netlmm mailing list > >>>>> netlmm@ietf.org > >>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> netlmm mailing list > >>> netlmm@ietf.org > >>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> netlmm mailing list > >> netlmm@ietf.org > >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > netlmm mailing list > netlmm@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm > _______________________________________________ netlmm mailing list netlmm@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm
- [netlmm] (no subject) LAI, SHOU WEN -HCHBJ
- RE: [netlmm] Issue: Auth Option support Alper Yegin
- RE: [netlmm] Issue: Auth Option support Sri Gundavelli
- [netlmm] (no subject) Christian Vogt
- [netlmm] Re: your mail Sri Gundavelli
- [netlmm] Issue: Auth Option support Sri Gundavelli
- RE: [netlmm] Issue: Auth Option support Alper Yegin
- Re: [netlmm] Issue: Auth Option support Christian Vogt
- Re: [netlmm] Issue: Auth Option support Vijay Devarapalli
- RE: [netlmm] Issue: Auth Option support Chowdhury, Kuntal
- RE: [netlmm] Issue: Auth Option support Sri Gundavelli
- Re: [netlmm] Issue: Auth Option support Alexandru Petrescu
- RE: [netlmm] Issue: Auth Option support Alper Yegin
- Re: [netlmm] Issue: Auth Option support Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [netlmm] Issue: Auth Option support Julien Laganier
- Re: [netlmm] Issue: Auth Option support Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [netlmm] Issue: Auth Option support Julien Laganier
- Re: [netlmm] Issue: Auth Option support Alexandru Petrescu
- RE: [netlmm] Issue: Auth Option support Sri Gundavelli
- RE: [netlmm] Issue: Auth Option support Narayanan, Vidya
- Re: [netlmm] Issue: Auth Option support Basavaraj Patil
- RE: [netlmm] Issue: Auth Option support Sri Gundavelli
- Re: [netlmm] Issue: Auth Option support Basavaraj Patil
- Re: [netlmm] Issue: Auth Option support Vijay Devarapalli
- RE: [netlmm] Issue: Auth Option support Sri Gundavelli
- RE: [netlmm] Issue: Auth Option support Alper Yegin
- Re: [netlmm] Issue: Auth Option support Julien Laganier
- RE: [netlmm] Issue: Auth Option support Ahmad Muhanna
- RE: [netlmm] Issue: Auth Option support Ahmad Muhanna
- Re: [netlmm] Issue: Auth Option support Vijay Devarapalli
- Re: [netlmm] Issue: Auth Option support Vijay Devarapalli
- Re: [netlmm] Issue: Auth Option support Vijay Devarapalli
- RE: [netlmm] Issue: Auth Option support DE JUAN HUARTE FEDERICO
- RE: [netlmm] Issue: Auth Option support Ahmad Muhanna
- RE: [netlmm] Issue: Auth Option support Alper Yegin
- RE: [netlmm] Issue: Auth Option support Alper Yegin
- Re: [netlmm] Issue: Auth Option support Vijay Devarapalli
- [netlmm] Question on security model DE JUAN HUARTE FEDERICO
- RE: [netlmm] Question on security model Sri Gundavelli
- [netlmm] RE: Question on security model Ahmad Muhanna
- Re: [netlmm] Question on security model Julien Laganier
- RE: [netlmm] Question on security model Alper Yegin
- [netlmm] (no subject) Lynoh MaGee