Re: [secdir] Security review of draft-ietf-pce-questions-06

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Eric,

Ben has clarified...

> I prefer 1 [Add security-related text to each section of this document], that
> way the security advice is likely to be read by whoever reads that section - 
> that is, by the people who are likely to benefit from it.

I've agreed to look at this, but i find myself a tiny bit busy. There is a meeting I have to go to at the end of the week and I have to prepare some material.

Will get to this in due course.

A

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Gray [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: 17 July 2014 02:15
> To: [e-mail]; 'Ben Laurie'; 'IETF Discussion List'; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: Security review of draft-ietf-pce-questions-06
> 
> Adrian,
> 
> 	I think it might be useful to have a little more information in the Security
> Considerations section.
> 
> 	For the example Ben gives, for example, the draft could include text in
> the SC section that makes the point Ben made and refers to the RFCs (or other
> places) where these issues have been discussed or addressed.
> 
> 	I am not sure the suggestion was to put security text in each section so
> much as to put pointers to relevant places where (admittedly not new) security
> issues have already been hashed out.
> 
> 	I don't think this would be the first draft that had an SC section listing
> the issues (old or new) that apply to other sections in the same draft.
> 
> --
> Eric
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 4:55 AM
> To: 'Ben Laurie'; 'IETF Discussion List'; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: Security review of draft-ietf-pce-questions-06
> 
> Hi Ben,
> 
> Thanks for taking the time to review this document and for posting your
> comments to the IETF discussion list so that we can consider them as last call
> comments.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > The security considerations section makes this claim:
> >
> > "This informational document does not define any new protocol elements
> > or mechanism.  As such, it does not introduce any new security
> > issues."
> >
> > I agree with the premise, but not the conclusion: just because an RFC
> > does not introduce new security issues, that does not mean that there
> > are no security considerations.
> >
> > Indeed, this RFC discusses many things that have quite serious
> > security considerations, without mentioning any of them. For example,
> > section 4 "How Do I Find My PCE?" (the very first question) advocates
> > a number of potentially completely insecure mechanisms with no mention
> > of their security properties (or otherwise). This is obviously
> > pervasive, given the stance taken in the security considerations.
> >
> > The document does mention that RFC 6952 gives a security analysis for
> > PCEP, and perhaps this is sufficient but it seems to me that a
> > document intended to give useful background information to noobs
> > should include security directly in that information rather than defer
> > to another giant document (which mixes PCEP info with other
> > protocols).
> 
> I don't believe that this document is strong on "advocacy", but discusses which
> tools are out there and what some people do.
> 
> Previous PCE RFCs have given some attention to security concerns in the use of
> PCE (RFC 4655), PCE discovery (RFC 4674, RFC 5088. RFC 5089), and the PCEP (RFC
> 4657 and RFC 5440). As such, "PCE Security" was not deemed by the authors to be
> a previously "unanswered question" and so did not need attention in this
> document.
> 
> That said, you are correct that the various sections do not discuss the security
> implications relating to those sections. I would be pretty loathe to add security
> text to each section in this document: I think that would make the document
> heavy and less likely to be read by its intended consumers (it is not targeting
> "noobs" although they are welcome to read it).
> 
> Perhaps a solution to this *is* to treat Security as an unanswered question and
> add a section "How Secure is my PCE-Enabled System?" I can't think of a lot to
> add there except for general egg-sucking guidance, but there would be a pointer
> to the TCP-AO discussions currently going on in the WG. What do you think of
> that as a way forward?
> 
> Thanks,
> Adrian
> 
>