Re: [Rift] Security review of draft-ietf-rift-rift-05 is now complete

Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com> Wed, 08 May 2019 04:55 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <0660FAD1-B80C-4D37-B4D6-6CE4F6759BCD@gmail.com> <7FAAD212-9335-4FD6-B064-0F7A25041177@gmail.com> <CA+wi2hMO985sJ1cC-dz_FCy_a6mza45g=EusiEPVgbjQR_YMFw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+wi2hMO985sJ1cC-dz_FCy_a6mza45g=EusiEPVgbjQR_YMFw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 07 May 2019 21:55:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+wi2hPBFvx9XHR3tPMBpag9OJdYqVe1n5qK40LmbnpCoi0D_w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bruno Rijsman <brunorijsman@gmail.com>
Cc: rift@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001f187b05885925ec"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rift/CMS9r1bwi1xYcwhGCirBAGbnsic>
Subject: Re: [Rift] Security review of draft-ietf-rift-rift-05 is now complete
Precedence: list

Thought about 2.10 further, had a cht with someone and the problem is that
if there is no inner key then the outer envelope doesn't protect AFAIS,
i.e. we'd loose link integrity on such TIEs completely. I don't think
that's an acceptable attack vector, loosening of security model. Further
thoughts welcome.

2.10 is a good optimization, given especially that the object is the
biggest part so flooding out we'll save tons of CPU when outer
envelope (lifetime) changes. Should we include that?
>
>

[Rift] 2 weeks for comments on security section Bruno Rijsman
[Rift] Security review of draft-ietf-rift-rift-05… Bruno Rijsman
Re: [Rift] Security review of draft-ietf-rift-rif… Tony Przygienda
Re: [Rift] Security review of draft-ietf-rift-rif… Tony Przygienda
Re: [Rift] Security review of draft-ietf-rift-rif… Tony Przygienda