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

[Ben Laurie <[e-mail]>]

On 10 July 2014 16:58, Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> So you don't like my proposed solution?
>
> I am not quite sure what you do consider a resolution to your concern. I can see three options:
>
> 1. Add security-related text to each section of this document.
> 2. Beef up the Security Considerations section with a subsection related to each section of the document.
> 3. Add a new section "How Secure is my PCE-Enabled System?" as I suggested.
>
> Do you have a preference among these, or is there another option you like better?

I prefer 1, 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.

>
> Thanks,
> Adrian
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ben Laurie [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: 09 July 2014 15:04
>> To: [e-mail]
>> Cc: IETF Discussion List; [e-mail]; The IESG
>> Subject: Re: Security review of draft-ietf-pce-questions-06
>>
>> On 9 July 2014 09:55, Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> > 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).
>>
>> Your position appears to be that they will then go on to read much
>> heavier documents in order to discover the security properties of the
>> solutions you suggest, which seems a little unlikely, particularly if
>> there's no mention of the necessity to do so.
>>
>> Or perhaps you think security is not important?
>>
>> > 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?
>>
>> I have no idea what discussions are going on, but once more, if you
>> are concerned about "heaviness" of documentation, pointing at ongoing
>> discussions does not strike me as a route to lightness.
>