Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-30
"Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy" <TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@McAfee.com> Fri, 15 March 2019 08:35 UTC
Return-Path: <TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@mcafee.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 12AED12D4F3; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 01:35:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=mcafee.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 pWNcTUMyd1pX; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 01:35:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DNVWSMAILOUT1.mcafee.com (dnvwsmailout1.mcafee.com [161.69.31.173]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97FB7128709; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 01:35:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-NAI-Header: Modified by McAfee Email Gateway (5500)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mcafee.com; s=s_mcafee; t=1552638715; h=From: To:CC:Subject:Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:Date: Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To:Accept-Language: Content-Language:X-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: dlp-product:dlp-version:dlp-reaction:authentication-results: x-originating-ip:x-ms-publictraffictype:x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: x-microsoft-antispam:x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: x-microsoft-antispam-prvs:x-forefront-prvs: x-forefront-antispam-report:received-spf:x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: x-microsoft-antispam-message-info:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id:X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: X-OriginatorOrg:X-NAI-Spam-Flag:X-NAI-Spam-Level: X-NAI-Spam-Threshold:X-NAI-Spam-Score:X-NAI-Spam-Version; bh=zGd7AVK9rW/VyA8cngVGkySTTJx3I53XcT5T+B PLra4=; b=QdKYMx74VaPLYmRxqG/ff4+5x5LQdBCR0PtaFKNX biOdQ/v+LH8eIrkrkxjJxDNpFJ7yBxUPGADwjM81GOJQO+frNB OguHpjj/4slMWgGF8DXHwkFOvP4BdK5U0dVoH4sgT2dQSzT/k5 K1Pnv8aUt44F6VLeB94JRjvEK5gdBnA=
Received: from DNVEXAPP1N06.corpzone.internalzone.com (unknown [10.44.48.90]) by DNVWSMAILOUT1.mcafee.com with smtp (TLS: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384) id 3ffc_422d_3a2559ae_f791_4b5a_bcf1_d6c72b593f1d; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 02:31:54 -0600
Received: from DNVEXAPP1N04.corpzone.internalzone.com (10.44.48.88) by DNVEXAPP1N06.corpzone.internalzone.com (10.44.48.90) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 02:35:16 -0600
Received: from DNVO365EDGE2.corpzone.internalzone.com (10.44.176.74) by DNVEXAPP1N04.corpzone.internalzone.com (10.44.48.88) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 02:35:16 -0600
Received: from NAM02-CY1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (10.44.176.241) by edge.mcafee.com (10.44.176.74) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 02:35:16 -0600
Received: from DM6PR16MB2794.namprd16.prod.outlook.com (20.178.225.219) by DM6PR16MB3050.namprd16.prod.outlook.com (10.255.61.79) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1709.13; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 08:35:13 +0000
Received: from DM6PR16MB2794.namprd16.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::a948:401e:299e:4550]) by DM6PR16MB2794.namprd16.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::a948:401e:299e:4550%6]) with mapi id 15.20.1686.021; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 08:35:13 +0000
From: "Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy" <TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@McAfee.com>
To: "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com" <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel.all@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "dots@ietf.org" <dots@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-30
Thread-Index: AQHU2oF5bx6+d1T5QkC+CtJqzs0JZ6YMGWiwgAA1/gCAAA6ycA==
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 08:35:13 +0000
Message-ID: <DM6PR16MB2794524F44A0292A49CE4E03EA440@DM6PR16MB2794.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
References: <155257761487.2625.10003476313108979036@ietfa.amsl.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EA3DFC8@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <BYAPR16MB2790DBE16FFCC0A5B80C86B7EA440@BYAPR16MB2790.namprd16.prod.outlook.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EA3E549@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EA3E549@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
dlp-product: dlpe-windows
dlp-version: 11.2.0.6
dlp-reaction: no-action
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@McAfee.com;
x-originating-ip: [103.245.47.20]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 4b749e58-13fb-4983-5165-08d6a9212504
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600127)(711020)(4605104)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:DM6PR16MB3050;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM6PR16MB3050:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM6PR16MB30509B56D2E0BB742A127177EA440@DM6PR16MB3050.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
x-forefront-prvs: 09778E995A
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(39860400002)(396003)(366004)(376002)(346002)(136003)(32952001)(13464003)(189003)(199004)(8676002)(9686003)(6116002)(110136005)(6246003)(229853002)(11346002)(446003)(33656002)(106356001)(99286004)(52536014)(71200400001)(256004)(476003)(105586002)(5024004)(14444005)(55016002)(486006)(71190400001)(66066001)(5660300002)(7696005)(86362001)(72206003)(53546011)(6436002)(316002)(93886005)(8936002)(25786009)(4326008)(305945005)(76176011)(7736002)(6506007)(26005)(3846002)(2501003)(2906002)(478600001)(74316002)(81156014)(81166006)(68736007)(54906003)(102836004)(186003)(14454004)(53936002)(80792005)(97736004)(85282002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:DM6PR16MB3050; H:DM6PR16MB2794.namprd16.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: McAfee.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: PCxjd7UxPj5vT3WQEJDFhMVxEgPQtugjuLcPyU0vbwZHtAQx17ZHWMm0XXenD5xbHFYJBGxplgy8Q6kM8zpMh2oP3bVqiyIBDEVEwHUL4JcbnjrOnV5MiS7txtEodsMCo/Vm/+WStguu6pFTjbBS/zXoZhktjhhJEPGDaUB9Wl3wNlKG+jZlB++wlI+PBNfxJ1LTAAxTuPeVQlj7ybysZ4662+fV9RfxTkg+OxevpEC5Cxe4HmllpfBC0zV/kzUSnjugwPLoIOZb/aROIU7e5w/R7Kp2Qj2jIUNWGv2dafRt38FVj+oeK817NFiYtfGgz5tfcKSxNL4CyWUKjkmyz9uWVf6eieA8NHS+eo5d+hIWxJ1g64oVigtrjQGZZlrI806DlmNtVRPbshJHtRyWzd/+p/oaYhMMmPOFdh8NQ0E=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 4b749e58-13fb-4983-5165-08d6a9212504
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 15 Mar 2019 08:35:13.8467 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 4943e38c-6dd4-428c-886d-24932bc2d5de
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM6PR16MB3050
X-OriginatorOrg: mcafee.com
X-NAI-Spam-Flag: NO
X-NAI-Spam-Level:
X-NAI-Spam-Threshold: 15
X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0.1
X-NAI-Spam-Version: 2.3.0.9418 : core <6503> : inlines <7034> : streams <1815760> : uri <2813108>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/PhVLeQi8lbJYEHceHebVoJZrpjU>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-30
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 08:35:30 -0000
> -----Original Message----- > From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> > Sent: Friday, March 15, 2019 1:09 PM > To: Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy <TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@McAfee.com>; > Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>; secdir@ietf.org > Cc: draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel.all@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; dots@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-30 > > This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or > open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. > > Hi Tiru, > > Please see inline. > > Cheers, > Med > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > De : Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy > > [mailto:TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@McAfee.com] > > Envoyé : vendredi 15 mars 2019 05:30 > > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN; Stephen Farrell; secdir@ietf.org Cc : > > draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel.all@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; > > dots@ietf.org Objet : RE: Secdir last call review of > > draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-30 > > > > Please see inline > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Dots <dots-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of > > > mohamed.boucadair@orange.com > > > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 9:47 PM > > > To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>; secdir@ietf.org > > > Cc: draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel.all@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; > > dots@ietf.org > > > Subject: Re: [Dots] Secdir last call review of > > > draft-ietf-dots-signal- > > channel-30 > > > > > > This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click > > > links > > or > > > open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the > > > content is safe. > > > > > > Hi Stephen, > > > > > > Thank you for the review. > > > > > > Please see inline. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Med > > > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > > > De : Stephen Farrell via Datatracker [mailto:noreply@ietf.org] > > > > Envoyé > > > > : jeudi 14 mars 2019 16:34 À : secdir@ietf.org Cc : > > > > draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel.all@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; > > > > dots@ietf.org Objet : Secdir last call review of > > > > draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-30 > > > > > > > > Reviewer: Stephen Farrell > > > > Review result: Has Issues > > > > > > > > > > > > I think there's one issue with this draft that'd be well worth > > > > discussion and/or fixing: > > > > > > > > - p12: Why does the cuid need to be so static? I would have > > > > thought that an identifier that can change more often than a key > > > > pair would have been better, esp if this could be used in a CPE. > > > > (Creating a new long-lived identifier for a CPE seems like a bad > > > > plan if it's not really needed.) For example, one could use both > > > > the SPKI and a timestamp as input for a recommended way to > > > > generate a cuid and that should be as unique, but much more easily > > > > changed. That could also mitigate the possible TLS1.2 client-cert > > > > snooping issue mentioned on p90. > > > > > > [Med] cuid is used for avoidance detection but also as a stable key > > > to identify resources at the server side. Any change of the cuid > > > will lead to > > a > > > failure in accessing the resources. > > > Furthermore, this identifier is used to "glue" the signal and data > > channels. > > > > > > The spec does not forbid the clients to change its cuid, but to do > > > so, the client will need to manage state migration. > > > > > > > > > > > nits: > > > > > > > > - (Not really a nit, but probably too much to ask, so...) The > > > > protocol here seems very complex. Has anyone tried to prove > > > > anything about the state machine, e.g. > > > > that's it's safe in some senses? It'd be fair to say that that is > > > > a good task to do after the initial RFC is published in this case, > > > > I guess. OTOH, could be some of the theorem-proving tools used in > > > > the development of > > > > TLS1.3 could be useful here. (And those tools usually do turn up > > > > some issues worth fixing - I'd bet a beer they would in this > > > > case:-) > > > > > > [Med] The specification was edited following an incremental approach > > > in which new pieces are validated through at least two interoperable > > > implementations. We hope that more feedback will be received after > > > the initial RFC. > > > > > > > > > > > - p18: "Only single-valued 'cdid' are defined in this document." > > > > That confused me given the text 3 paras before about multiple cdid values. > > > > Maybe clarifying that some could be useful? > > > > > > [Med] What is meant here is the case where multiple GWs are involved > > > in the path; each inserts a cdid value. > > > > 'cdid' is only inserted by the server-domain DOTS gateway. > > [Med] I added this NEW text to clarify the comment from Stephen: > > OLD: > Only single-valued 'cdid' are defined in this document. > > NEW: > Only single-valued 'cdid' are defined in this document. That is, > only the first server-domain DOTS gateway can insert a 'cdid' Replace "only the first server-domain" with "only the first on-path server-domain" > value. This specification does not allow multiple server-domain > DOTS gateways, whenever involved in the path, to insert a 'cdid' > value for each. Looks good. > > Figure 8 needs to > > be corrected, 'cuid' is missing in the Figure. > > [Med] Figure 8 is correct. Yes. Cheers, -Tiru
- [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-do… Stephen Farrell via Datatracker
- Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-iet… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-iet… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-iet… Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
- Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-iet… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-iet… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-iet… Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
- Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-iet… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-iet… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-iet… Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
- Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-iet… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-iet… Michael Richardson
- Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-iet… Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
- Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-iet… mohamed.boucadair