IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pcp] Comparison of PCP authentication

"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Thu, 09 August 2012 18:32 UTC

Return-Path: <dwing@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 729A321F875A for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 11:32:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.507
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.507 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.092, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4-XWhZREfabf for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 11:32:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtv-iport-3.cisco.com (mtv-iport-3.cisco.com [173.36.130.14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0085621F8741 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 11:32:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; l=909; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1344537151; x=1345746751; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date: message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=6lMPl5dN+cqQ+r3WhAbcZ/Xg1BoGkfF6aEIwwRpAICs=; b=g7znnotapvoxBOlw0nnEGZtu6S3CtF4NkIeagUUySceXMbRyRNWFCXDP fJifyBEf5mxxyHv9dsLzzEtORpUYSxvzHbTzJH23QOZJC6RpiEHzw2l7q uwRudMcRRhbmHvZEIcle/st96Q8AXF/8ykoRVmJoXJUaAhFSVvGy6yrX5 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AikFAIzgI1CrRDoG/2dsb2JhbABFhTqkZo9CgQeCIAEBAQQICgEXED8MAQMCCQ8CBAEBKAcZIwoJCAEBBBMLF4dqmweNY5MKiw+GZAOIToUMlhiBZoJ/
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,741,1336348800"; d="scan'208";a="51995661"
Received: from mtv-core-1.cisco.com ([171.68.58.6]) by mtv-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Aug 2012 18:32:29 +0000
Received: from dwingWS (sjc-vpn7-1991.cisco.com [10.21.151.199]) by mtv-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q79IWS5d012505; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 18:32:28 GMT
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
To: 'Sam Hartman' <hartmans@painless-security.com>
References: <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B6EC381@TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <7FE144CF-00E3-4451-8CBE-A6A684DB7CC4@yegin.org> <067d01cd73fd$765a6c50$630f44f0$@com> <D6D2DEED-C35A-45AB-8B72-96195C308DB9@yegin.org> <57FF0F8E-1B86-410F-8B6B-C4893A28222F@lilacglade.org> <BB72B80F-0622-4A5B-A985-79D8AED13E0B@apple.com> <003b01cd7587$a111b760$e3352620$@com> <15990E87-2D59-49B1-845C-2A4CB5A1FBD6@lilacglade.org> <008801cd758f$3fd306e0$bf7914a0$@com> <C72CBD9FE3CA604887B1B3F1D145D05E2CE65225@szxeml528-mbx.china.huawei.com> <028801cd75d6$c5765490$5062fdb0$@com> <tsla9y4gptp.fsf@mit.edu> <04c901cd7658$37a740c0$a6f5c240$@com> <tslboikexlv.fsf@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <tslboikexlv.fsf@mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 11:32:28 -0700
Message-ID: <054001cd765d$54c0f3e0$fe42dba0$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ac12W6ER2TBeTf2DS4qcgYOm1MjDVgAAVNUQ
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: 'Margaret Wasserman' <mrw@lilacglade.org>, pcp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [pcp] Comparison of PCP authentication
X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: PCP wg discussion list <pcp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pcp>, <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pcp>
List-Post: <mailto:pcp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp>, <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 18:32:31 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sam Hartman [mailto:hartmans@painless-security.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 11:20 AM
> To: Dan Wing
> Cc: 'Zhangdacheng (Dacheng)'; 'Margaret Wasserman'; pcp@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [pcp] Comparison of PCP authentication
> 
> >>>>> "Dan" == Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com> writes:
> 
> 
>     Dan> I am struggling to imagine a PCP client that would refuse to
> do
>     Dan> MAP or PEER because its PCP server doesn't support
>     Dan> authentication.
> 
> If I'm updating security policy on a firewall I want to be able to
> audit whether that actually happened.  That requires authentication.

You are saying a PCP client would only want to update firewall policies 
if the PCP server supports authentication, otherwise it would tell the
user that it cannot enable the webcam, Internet-connected NAS, 
Internet-connected printer, etc.?

-d

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email