Re: [secdir] pana-relay security considerations

Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> Mon, 10 January 2011 13:23 UTC

Return-Path: <aland@deployingradius.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DAFD3A6AFB; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 05:23:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.581
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.581 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.018, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XVyXG6uY9VOt; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 05:23:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from liberty.deployingradius.com (liberty.deployingradius.com [88.191.76.128]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52A333A6AFA; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 05:23:36 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4D2B08DD.6010603@deployingradius.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:25:49 +0100
From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Macintosh/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Margaret Wasserman <margaretw42@gmail.com>
References: <4D009D34.1020809@deployingradius.com> <4D01DABF.6060604@toshiba.co.jp> <001101cb9aa0$367b3480$a3719d80$@yegin@yegin.org> <4D064683.30009@deployingradius.com> <4D07A874.4010702@gridmerge.com> <4D07D090.9020407@deployingradius.com> <070601cba3ad$63852150$2a8f63f0$@yegin@yegin.org> <4D270D1D.8090006@deployingradius.com> <005f01cbb0b2$2bc21cc0$83465640$@yegin@yegin.org> <4D2AE752.2000504@deployingradius.com> <006001cbb0b7$da450050$8ecf00f0$@yegin@yegin.org> <4D2AF65C.6060903@deployingradius.com> <A5B8DC5E-C118-47CE-9419-2F73879A6430@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <A5B8DC5E-C118-47CE-9419-2F73879A6430@gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: secdir@ietf.org, paduffy@cisco.com, Alper Yegin <alper.yegin@yegin.org>, pana@ietf.org, robert.cragie@gridmerge.com, samitac@ipinfusion.com, 'Ralph Droms' <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [secdir] pana-relay security considerations
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:23:37 -0000

Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> In my opinion, a security mechanism for PRE-PAA authentication needs to
> be defined in this spec before we publish it.  I think it should be
> optional to actually _use_ the security mechanism, though since there
> some situations (such as closed or otherwise secured networks) where
> this type of security isn't required operationally.  The security
> considerations should make it clear what the risks are, and describe the
> situations in which it would be safe not to use the PRE-to-PAA security.
>
> Alan, would that satisfy your concerns?  PANA folks, would that meet
> your needs?

  That would satisfy my concerns, yes.

  Alan DeKok.