Re: [secdir] secdir Review of draft-ietf-pana-preauth-08
"Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <jsalowey@cisco.com> Thu, 21 January 2010 16:22 UTC
Return-Path: <jsalowey@cisco.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 F272D28C168; Thu, 21 Jan 2010 08:22:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.052
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.052 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.547, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 lmQJZwXritpj; Thu, 21 Jan 2010 08:22:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB26D3A6989; Thu, 21 Jan 2010 08:22:24 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-5.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEAPcNWEurRN+J/2dsb2JhbADDY5YXhDwE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.49,318,1262563200"; d="scan'208";a="137672256"
Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.223.137]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Jan 2010 16:22:20 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o0LGMKpk017526; Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:22:20 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-225.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.38]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 21 Jan 2010 08:22:20 -0800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 08:22:18 -0800
Message-ID: <AC1CFD94F59A264488DC2BEC3E890DE509792659@xmb-sjc-225.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <04ba01ca9a5e$93c5fd70$bb51f850$@yegin@yegin.org>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: secdir Review of draft-ietf-pana-preauth-08
Thread-Index: AcqaB+ivLuYfxyn5SqyKWg++bb7fJgAVYKaAABYVcBA=
References: <AC1CFD94F59A264488DC2BEC3E890DE50971A98A@xmb-sjc-225.amer.cisco.com> <04ba01ca9a5e$93c5fd70$bb51f850$@yegin@yegin.org>
From: "Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <jsalowey@cisco.com>
To: Alper Yegin <alper.yegin@yegin.org>, secdir@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pana-preauth@tools.ietf.org, pana-chairs@tools.ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jan 2010 16:22:20.0688 (UTC) FILETIME=[E8144100:01CA9AB5]
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir Review of draft-ietf-pana-preauth-08
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: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:22:26 -0000
Thanks Alper, This looks better. Cheers, Joe > -----Original Message----- > From: Alper Yegin [mailto:alper.yegin@yegin.org] > Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 9:57 PM > To: Joseph Salowey (jsalowey); secdir@ietf.org; iesg@ietf.org; draft-ietf- > pana-preauth@tools.ietf.org; pana-chairs@tools.ietf.org > Subject: RE: secdir Review of draft-ietf-pana-preauth-08 > > Thank you Joe. > > Let me re-massage the security considerations section using your comments: > > 6. Security Considerations > > This specification is based on the PANA protocol and it exhibits the > same security properties, except for one important difference: Pre- > authenticating PaCs are not physically connected to an access network > associated with the PAA, but they are connected to some other network > somewhere else on the Internet. This distinction can create greater > DoS vulnerability for systems using PANA pre-authentication if > appropriate measures are not taken. An unprotected PAA can be forced > to create state by an attacker PaC which merely sends PCI messages. > > [RFC5191] describes how PAA can stay stateless while > responding to incoming PCIs. PAAs using pre-authentication SHOULD be > following those guidelines (see [RFC5191] Section 4.1). > > Furthermore, it is recommended that PANA pre-authentication messages > are > only > accepted from PACs originating from well-known IP networks (e.g., > physically > adjacent networks) for a given PAA. These IP networks can be used with > a > white-list implemented either on the firewall protecting the perimeter > around > the PAA, or on the PAA itself. This prevention measure SHOULD be used > whenever > it can be practically applied to a given deployment. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Joseph Salowey (jsalowey) [mailto:jsalowey@cisco.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:37 AM > > To: secdir@ietf.org; iesg@ietf.org; draft-ietf-pana- > > preauth@tools.ietf.org; pana-chairs@tools.ietf.org > > Subject: secdir Review of draft-ietf-pana-preauth-08 > > > > I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's > > ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the > > IESG. > > These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security > > area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these as > > comments just like any other last call comments. I apologize for the > > late review. > > > > I did not find any major issues with the document. The security > > considerations section does describe the additional DOS threat > > associated with the operation of the protocol. I think the potential > > mitigations could be described better. 1) it seems that the stateless > > PCI should be moved up in the section since it is related to the last > > sentence of the first paragraph. 2) it's not clear that "authorized" is > > the best word to use here since authentication has not completed yet. > > It might be better to say "It is recommended that messages are only > > accepted from PACs originating from well known IP networks for a given > > PAA." It's not really clear how effective or practical this > > restriction > > would be, but I'm not very familiar with PANA deployments. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Joe >
- [secdir] secdir Review of draft-ietf-pana-preauth… Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)
- Re: [secdir] secdir Review of draft-ietf-pana-pre… Alper Yegin
- Re: [secdir] secdir Review of draft-ietf-pana-pre… Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)