Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-04

Hi,

Documents containing MIB modules must include a discussion of the
sensitivity of the tables/objects in the MIB module. This includes the
possible impact to the managed technologies that could be caused by an
unauthorized or misguided change to a configuration, for example.
Certainly the potential impact of using MIB objects to change the
relative priority of a managed technology's sessions would need to be
included in the read-write security considerations of the MIB module.
See https://svn.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/mib-security

Using AVPs in Diameter to affect a similar change to the relative
priority of a managed technology's sessions warrants a similar
consideration of the sensitivity of the specific AVPs.   

David Harrington
Director, IETF Transport Area
Member of SECDIR, OPSDIR, and MIB Doctors directorates
ietfdbh@comcast.net (preferred for ietf)
dbharrington@huaweisymantec.com
+1 603 828 1401 (cell)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: secdir-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:secdir-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of carlberg@g11.org.uk
> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 7:24 AM
> To: Stephen Hanna
> Cc: lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com; 
> draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps.all@tools.ietf.org; 
> ietf@ietf.org; secdir@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of 
> draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-04
> 
> Steve,
> 
> 
> Quoting Stephen Hanna <shanna@juniper.net>:
> 
> > Thanks for your response, Ken.
> >
> > Removing the last sentence that you quoted would make things
worse.
> > Readers of this draft should definitely familiarize themselves
with
> > the security considerations related to priority. We should make
that
> > easier, not harder. The fact that those considerations also apply
to
> > other RFCs does not remove the fact that they apply to this 
> one also.
> 
> but those considerations do not directly apply to DIAMETER.
> 
> > You cannot publish a document whose security considerations
section
> > says (as this one effectively does today), "There are lots 
> of security
> > considerations related to this document. To understand them,
please
> > dig through all the referenced documents and figure it out 
> yourself."
> > Doing that digging and analysis is the job of the document
editors.
> 
> agreed, speaking in the general sense.  But again, the security  
> considerations of these other protocols do not apply to the 
> operation  
> of Diameter.
> 
> > In order to ease the burden on you, I think a reasonable
compromise
> > would be for YOU to review the documents referenced and decide
which
> > have the most relevant security considerations. Then you could
list
> > those explicitly in the last paragraph of the Security 
> Considerations.
> 
> I'm concerned about the implications of your recommendation.  If we

> extend this position to other work in the IETF, then efforts like  
> defining MIBs would mean that each MIB draft would need to perform a

> security considerations analysis of each protocol that an objects  
> refers to in the context of SNMP.  And one can extend the argument  
> that each protocol operating on top of TCP (and/or UDP) and IP would

> need to perform an analysis on how TCP/UDP and IP may affect 
> the upper  
> layer protocol.  We don't do that today.
> 
> cheers,
> 
> -ken
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> secdir mailing list
> secdir@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir
> 