IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [nfsv4] I-D Action: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls-01.txt

Olga Kornievskaia <aglo@umich.edu> Tue, 23 April 2019 13:42 UTC

Return-Path: <olga.kornievskaia@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6B4912043D for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 06:42:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.748
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.748 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=umich.edu
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 vrWfksNtKzrq for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 06:42:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua1-x934.google.com (mail-ua1-x934.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::934]) (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 50BCF12043C for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 06:42:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua1-x934.google.com with SMTP id a46so4779947uae.2 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 06:42:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umich.edu; s=google-2016-06-03; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=nmOIbz/YHwHPPIfbHZHtWyHDPxjPVsduu/z+C+M5InU=; b=njYAOde6WP4A9/ku0Hbn9HR2YxyteAuuNjR3VRqtOGiB/aM7ldXzVGe+9Yxw/jclIv ZxyUWP46P2DR3NwsQor71tTzFhCr0YnFHzR+6wH4zc88UtTyaxcKantpG7AWuGAg4Zfm /GigWOMYtCZVq5BtbJpMWyxIDpNulRaJFRyr0Lt7N3T3qVFwo2sDKP2XhdSudvgGoiT4 CWt4C1SgO361ilHcd0aZwpTn+LmuGEFOtmalQOirrWBQJxf1XBpehRQK96YXdWxY++OG zuDVL4gzsqznZYmBPRwrRpBSO1zbke1tgO+fgbPKtWlclZuhJU3lbaify9OEli8DkVn4 M17Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=nmOIbz/YHwHPPIfbHZHtWyHDPxjPVsduu/z+C+M5InU=; b=obstQwuxcE/KAjxg/as8CetP3k8kRcbF9H7zPedPEkbNArEK56wJCvKmO9a+uMRlrI yKaIJcLfJer1BpK8s7uv3jWriueFl6ojWidE6XsLmFAmytpQYBKwD5VIylPtOvhdmzkM OiKnsg+btTZLbi2/9zlcMHFvPyJanvGk+AlXzGG2Sr4k2IM3eeefG1hViKhnRH851b8Z PxgBE2vWKGFjGMeacp13cBDxNUzpnL1jlJ1ElJNJmbWucHHh7m+Sj9sQGp0sZDev3Ed7 0I5OuuxngOJRoRdkNLlWSjvd5zhay1KZBFZSdQp2ASVK10KgL7ZYqaE54Fn79ZC2/vUR A+Cw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUEdVQj5dA2s2y/26VhyjDnrZ10UPiFIrdKmkf6I5EJ1r4RQiIZ XC9GHaPSoomZdx5ILnkhZt3cgBbauLT7piKMaRE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyHx1T08u8Mf93zucaC2TZBVAYr35ReTEe3go+Q+Xo3RGzyObvfRG2ow1Kdx8g+0CswdZVMqDnz+WZchY+ZNqo=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:7298:: with SMTP id w24mr12079925uao.119.1556026945234; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 06:42:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <155535049832.10773.1565621811584007627@ietfa.amsl.com> <CADaq8jcCB9g9v=h4iXu1f6=cAsU7wMdmfh31gCQKvEFw2eG=rA@mail.gmail.com> <804CB622-D696-4FAA-8040-993CB4029508@oracle.com> <20190422154814.GH72232@kduck.mit.edu> <1675709053.1664834.1556009043904.JavaMail.zimbra@desy.de>
In-Reply-To: <1675709053.1664834.1556009043904.JavaMail.zimbra@desy.de>
From: Olga Kornievskaia <aglo@umich.edu>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 09:42:13 -0400
Message-ID: <CAN-5tyEQA_XiWW7Ry3SfHQYN46cdoSgUqKT3wx6YLn1t9PB18w@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Mkrtchyan, Tigran" <tigran.mkrtchyan@desy.de>
Cc: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>, NFSv4 <nfsv4@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/SS2S4zuq_JS8WOvrKMxiVgYaVsk>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] I-D Action: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls-01.txt
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <nfsv4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/nfsv4/>
List-Post: <mailto:nfsv4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 13:42:28 -0000

On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 4:44 AM Mkrtchyan, Tigran
<tigran.mkrtchyan@desy.de> wrote:
>
>
>
> The other aspect that probably makes sense to describe is the behavior
> when server insist on TLS, some thing like that only operation NULL
> is accepted and anything else fails with error AUTH_TOOWEAK or similar.
> In general, the point is not to enforce one or an other way, but clearly
> specify the client/server interaction to avoid ambiguity for implementors.
> IOW, pure egoism :)

Isn't this already taken care of by the NFS layer. Say my server is
exporting only krb5 flavors and my client mounts with sec=sys, I will
get a ERR_WRONGSEC back and mount would fail.

>
> Tigran.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Benjamin Kaduk" <kaduk@mit.edu>
> > To: "Chuck Lever" <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
> > Cc: "NFSv4" <nfsv4@ietf.org>
> > Sent: Monday, April 22, 2019 5:48:15 PM
> > Subject: Re: [nfsv4] I-D Action: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls-01.txt
>
> > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 01:11:54PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Apr 16, 2019, at 1:09 PM, David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I'm confused by the addition of the word "opportunistically" in the abstract.
> >> > This document defines an important way of providing security to RPC-based
> >> > protocols such as NFSv4, so as to deal with the very real security problemms
> >> > that these protocols have.    While these facilities can only be used when both
> >> > client and the server provides support, I don't think that fact alone make the
> >> > use of these facilties "opportunistic".    What exactlty is this word intended
> >> > to imply?
> >>
> >> "Opportunistic" is a term of art. See:
> >>
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunistic_TLS
> >
> > RFC 7435 is also a good reference for this topic (and one that has IETF
> > consensus, FWIW).
> >
> > The summary of the reasoning for the use of this term is basically that it
> > does not provide protection in the face of an *active* attacker (that can
> > force downgrade to the previous/insecure technology), but does protect
> > against passive observation.
> >
> > -Ben
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > nfsv4 mailing list
> > nfsv4@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfsv4 mailing list
> nfsv4@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email