[secdir] Initial review of draft-ietf-anima-reference-model-01

"Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing)" <ncamwing@cisco.com> Mon, 18 July 2016 03:47 UTC

Return-Path: <ncamwing@cisco.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 57D2C12D18A; Sun, 17 Jul 2016 20:47:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.807
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.807 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g-DG3mrGN97J; Sun, 17 Jul 2016 20:47:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C47712D0FC; Sun, 17 Jul 2016 20:47:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6029; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1468813648; x=1470023248; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=4Y9214TdF4JBoHPPpmAnuXgVTsddBK2TNNVmyXms6QE=; b=EHItR+lTDAYvClvCg3b2mfO5CH8WxUKEap/X1GLMgFBis4ers6jG8ytu m5DiKpK7/t0sUNkdm+gkB8BzfYrjPV3HSIRDXGrNkypZ7uD5ZG604nf3q yMyt0YzhIbqSRKYikysoUdx+7w3bStjJ6iOfxI7PRd+uD4lQeI8Q/M5Ul U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CQAgDiUIxX/4cNJK1cgnFOgVizcIUEg?= =?us-ascii?q?XmHQzgUAQEBAQEBAWUnhGMnZAGBACcEAYhCvxMBAQEBBgEBAQEBIpUSBY5EimA?= =?us-ascii?q?BgTSNKo83kB0BHjaDc4cpfwEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,382,1464652800"; d="scan'208,217";a="125154613"
Received: from alln-core-2.cisco.com ([173.36.13.135]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 18 Jul 2016 03:47:12 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (xch-rtp-015.cisco.com [64.101.220.155]) by alln-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u6I3lCKu027181 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 18 Jul 2016 03:47:12 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Sun, 17 Jul 2016 23:47:11 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Sun, 17 Jul 2016 23:47:11 -0400
From: "Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing)" <ncamwing@cisco.com>
To: "anima@ietf.org" <anima@ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Initial review of draft-ietf-anima-reference-model-01
Thread-Index: AQHR4KcQhmP1KNYyx0WDpAcA6/CBjw==
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 03:47:11 +0000
Message-ID: <D3B19F49.17FA63%ncamwing@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.6.6.160626
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.24.1.202]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D3B19F4917FA63ncamwingciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/3Lj1wvG-DVI1r7qOWAbDGZ1soZs>
Subject: [secdir] Initial review of draft-ietf-anima-reference-model-01
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 18 Jul 2016 03:47:30 -0000

As the Security Advisor for Anima, I have reviewed draft-ietf-anima-reference-model-01

and have the following comments:


Editorial nits:

Section 4.6 : ACP's full description should be called out as its the first instance of its use in this draft.


Section 7.1: "general concepts, such as sitting on top of the ANI, etc." seems to be a dangling sentence (at least ill formed).


Section 7.2 typo in several references: "Enrolment" -> Enrollment



Comments:

Section 6:

  - Self-protecting against what attacks?  All possible attacks (hard to predict)  or is it "known" attacks as described where?

  - All protocols are secure by default implies that all protocols a configured by default to be encrypted to provide both confidentiality and integrity?


Section 6.2:  is a device = autonomic node?


Section 6.3: the MASA is the implied CA as well?


Section 7.2 (as a whole): seems to be incomplete....are constrained vs. unconstrained nodes explained elsewhere?  This description seems to imply its definition being in this section, but perhaps more text is missing?


Section 10:

 - The security considerations should discuss the potential for malware, e.g. a node that has either been misconfigured or infected.

 - Should there be privacy considerations as potential topology and identities be disclosed especially during discovery and bootstrap?



   Nancy