[secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building-09
Catherine Meadows <catherine.meadows@nrl.navy.mil> Mon, 06 April 2015 21:33 UTC
Return-Path: <catherine.meadows@nrl.navy.mil>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 799701AC438; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 14:33:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 Fbby2dRQymxR; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 14:33:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ccs.nrl.navy.mil (mx0.ccs.nrl.navy.mil [IPv6:2001:480:20:118:118::211]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61F481AC437; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 14:33:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ashurbanipal.fw5540.net (fw5540.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.196.100]) by ccs.nrl.navy.mil (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t36LX24A011142 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 6 Apr 2015 17:33:02 -0400
From: Catherine Meadows <catherine.meadows@nrl.navy.mil>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_968C6142-35F7-43CC-B10C-FAC73C9E6D30"
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2015 17:33:02 -0400
Message-Id: <50AF625A-F94C-431D-A91A-C14876FC6DD4@nrl.navy.mil>
To: secdir@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building.all@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-CCS-MailScanner: No viruses found.
X-CCS-MailScanner-Info: See: http://www.nrl.navy.mil/ccs/support/email
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/X0537t5R5GJkvMVTuD32ioi5cFg>
Subject: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building-09
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <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: Mon, 06 Apr 2015 21:33:05 -0000
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 comments just like any other last call comments. This document gives recommendations for the use of RPL in home automation and building control, that typically provide support such things as climate and lighting control. I reviewed a much earlier version of this document, and I think this version is much improved in the way it scopes out the problem and handles the security implications. The Security Considerations section in particular is very thorough. There are a few improvements I would recommend, however: Section 4.1.8 Security You should give justifications for these choices of parameters as you give justifications for the other parameters described in this draft. Section 7.1 Security considerations during initial deployment New approaches to initial security deployment are being developed in [I-D.kumar-dice-dtls-relay] and [I-D.richardson-6tisch--security-6top]. They assume a partial ordering of the nodes, such that unsecured nodes are added sequentially with the restriction that a path between two secured nodes exists which passes through secured nodes only. I found this a little hard to understand. When does a node pass from being unsecured to secured? Or does an unsecured node remain unsecured? If there is a succinct way of saying this, it could go here. Since this is only describing new approaches that could potentially be applied, you would not want to go into a lot of detail. In the home, nodes can be visually inspected by the home owner and simple measures like pushing buttons simultaneously on joint and joining devices is probably sufficient. I think this definitely needs to be clarified! You need to say what is being accomplished by pushing the buttons (device pairing)? 7.2 When nodes are lost, no additional security measures are needed, the network remains secure as before by not allowing the addition of new nodes. I’m not sure what this means. Does it mean that if a node is lost, then it is treated as a “new node” if it reappears, and is not allowed to rejoin the network? New nodes can be added by using the same protocols used for initial deployment. This came right after the sentence beginning “When nodes are lost” which said that new nodes are not added. That contradiction needs to be reconciled. I’m also not sure what “using the same protocol” means. Does it mean rerunning the protocol and rekeying all the nodes, or does it mean using the features that protocol has for adding nodes? Nits: Section 1.1 This applicability statement recommends more light weight security solutions and specify the conditions under which these solutions are appropriate. Should be “specifies” instead of “specify”. I’m also not sure what is meant by “conditions under which these solutions are appropriate.” Do you mean light-weight as opposed to no security, or light-weight as opposed to heavy-weight. Or are you talking about conditions under which different light-weight solutions are appropriate? From reading the rest of the draft, I would assume the last is what you mean. I consider this document ready with issues. Catherine Meadows Naval Research Laboratory Code 5543 4555 Overlook Ave., S.W. Washington DC, 20375 phone: 202-767-3490 fax: 202-404-7942 email: catherine.meadows@nrl.navy.mil
- [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-roll-applica… Catherine Meadows