Re: [secdir] SECDIR Review of draft-ietf-dime-local-keytran-11.txt
Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> Sun, 17 July 2011 01:41 UTC
Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78E2F21F8541; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 18:41:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.504
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.094, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EKA7Uj3kjZUs; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 18:41:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gy0-f172.google.com (mail-gy0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 936C121F84F3; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 18:41:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gyd5 with SMTP id 5so1080338gyd.31 for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 18:41:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=GSAGFhcs5rWxGr1e/TAlMbRPGHNPUgWNrjAg57igeUU=; b=kXDRWH9kFY3a4jUzmRuYfP2Vu4EFgEY7WDFZ2Ui3+ByWXZ9xCliZ7sr/tFU9Z+yrn1 ZDYTb6RYM3r+DG4UZB+mIXMrEA7dU3vWg0fAsD2ZAP05RMMfHoTaMu1gbhxJ0sKXNtjS CiQsfQ866sNm2d1IatXGZ41p90ikvrc0ihshs=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.101.175.36 with SMTP id c36mr4458682anp.93.1310866862372; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 18:41:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.100.134.9 with HTTP; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 18:41:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4E1FE90C.8050001@net-zen.net>
References: <CAMm+Lwh0CkuA_HRkgRB=GAQ4B-rG79kv+Nf=jnVJYUYfmhn8+g@mail.gmail.com> <4E1FE90C.8050001@net-zen.net>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 21:41:02 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwjqzO7XD59RTjbeHvZCLAKsX5Bj1VeGvT6W7sP+gqDC_g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
To: Glen Zorn <gwz@net-zen.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001636c5be69adf7f304a839f972"
Cc: violeta.cakulev@alcatel-lucent.com, sunseawq@huawei.com, iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] SECDIR Review of draft-ietf-dime-local-keytran-11.txt
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 01:41:04 -0000
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 3:15 AM, Glen Zorn <gwz@net-zen.net> wrote: > Minor > > > > 3.1.4. Key-Lifetime AVP > > > > The Key-Lifetime AVP (AVP Code <AC4>) is of type Unsigned32 and > > represents the period of time (in seconds) for which the contents of the > > Keying-Material AVP (Section 3.1.3) is valid. > > > > If the key lifetime is really expected to be 2^32, i.e. 136 years > > They are most certainly not. Then maybe stating which parties might be expected to set limits and what might be expected? What happens if someone specifies a bizarrely long expiry on a credential expected to expire in hours or days? Does that allow for an attack? -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/
- [secdir] SECDIR Review of draft-ietf-dime-local-k… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [secdir] SECDIR Review of draft-ietf-dime-loc… Glen Zorn
- Re: [secdir] SECDIR Review of draft-ietf-dime-loc… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [secdir] SECDIR Review of draft-ietf-dime-loc… Glen Zorn