Re: [Ntp] Call for adoption: draft-schiff-ntp-chronos

[Harlan Stenn <[e-mail]>]

Am I the only person who would want to see the security guarantees at
least summarized in the draft?

I'm talking about a summary, not a pointer to some other document.

I care less about this if the draft switches to the Experimental track.

H

On 9/2/2019 6:03 AM, Neta R S wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Chronos' security guarantees were analysed in the following paper:
> https://www.ndss-symposium.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/ndss2018_02A-2_Deutsch_paper.pdf  
> (which is also referred in the draft).
> 
> Best,
> Neta
> 
> On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 3:55 PM Harlan Stenn <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     I am opposed to the adoption of this draft as anything other than an
>     experimental proposal.
> 
>     On 9/2/2019 5:49 AM, Neta R S wrote:
>     > Hi,
>     >
>     > Chronos has a provable security guarantees compared to the current
>     > NTPv4, even when facing MitM attacker.
> 
>     What *exactly* are these provable security guarantees?
> 
>     I suspect people are drawing incorrect inferences from "provable
>     security guarantees".
> 
>     H
>     --
>     > Thus, we suggested Chronos as NTPv4 watchdog and named the draft
>     > accordingly.
>     > We'll consider your comment regarding the draft's name, but in the
>     worse
>     > case (where the MitM controls the client's gateway) I am not sure
>     there
>     > is a solution. 
>     >
>     > Regarding Daniel's and Kristof's comments, we agree that experimental
>     > might be a more appropriate intended status.
>     >
>     > Best, 
>     > Neta
>     >
>     > On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 2:59 PM Miroslav Lichvar
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     > <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>> wrote:
>     >
>     >     On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 05:37:10AM +0000, Karen O'Donoghue wrote:
>     >     > A Secure Selection and Filtering Mechanism for the Network Time
>     >     Protocol Version 4
>     >     > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schiff-ntp-chronos/
>     >     >
>     >     > Please reply with your opinion on whether or not the working
>     group
>     >     should adopt this document including your willingness to
>     review and
>     >     contribute..
>     >
>     >     I support adoption of this draft. I would like the group to
>     consider
>     >     using a slightly different title and more careful use of the word
>     >     "secure" in the document. The algorithms improve resiliency
>     against
>     >     some MITM attacks, but in the worst case security doesn't change.
>     >
>     >     --
>     >     Miroslav Lichvar
>     >
>     >     _______________________________________________
>     >     ntp mailing list
>     >     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     >     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp
>     >
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > ntp mailing list
>     > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp
>     >
> 
>     -- 
>     Harlan Stenn, Network Time Foundation
>     http://nwtime.org - be a Member!
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     ntp mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ntp mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp
> 

-- 
Harlan Stenn, Network Time Foundation
http://nwtime.org - be a Member!