[secdir] Review of draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno-10
Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com> Mon, 16 October 2017 22:03 UTC
Return-Path: <watsonbladd@gmail.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 A2D341331F2; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 15:03:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 Ql52TWx2L4yk; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 15:03:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua0-x22e.google.com (mail-ua0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4710C13247A; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 15:03:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id f46so10752022uae.1; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 15:03:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=vy55VDwNytCFrOsTyDPP1t2N9forBe1okCL0JClh6z0=; b=d5ycnnOusxCYA6Z8On8lv++cQpkcK3ho+kKc8LECLW8frQr6VTlFKpmCJ88NpYb9Ad 3qy9WDaLrkqrAV2l6hqUKaG0BDYmkoDT+tHM7U0+7L/f3o238SUs1/K8lzCQ/KUpJdCt fegZxO8EfKMw+xMzW+J8NpPlynGhK+ZYCclu4L56FEVeTuWa8F1LMwgL+G3Nk4LZ/O3j Johgz/rX8MViqxn399cAKLQtQWLSSAffIj08hr5+RnOj7Z1/8jbKUjmmeyclOKx3U7Oq 0c9wCpE9cQA1zkpQ1DJLDNT2APYQOLe0NaAc4AxDO5UVxFgSQNHhWOzP46g+sc2mLbkd V9bQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=vy55VDwNytCFrOsTyDPP1t2N9forBe1okCL0JClh6z0=; b=HFGK5EniQYGIjifU4UAEkkbcxywu6dehnznebCBXRPcB5WfweCYCKP+BuBRylr9eNf lqPq2i22pVt1pI7A2kRH+uCOo2W6g1HlS/1dBuqQE/H/g7iaAnOJT7HYl8j9kZ/Q8lfa Qy0+/9gQ9cvNDXvqsyfOK29rYSmtxM0w0wvpUNtPkkTB6dcstTKv/kxNt8gUmwfILM4X w+ZmLh34fQ0Leulu9i+sUBtgBTHulcHkxEHSpV+KHOzEeGhKPqjXajPiOpnda8G48e/o bfjoo+bN9q24KIJUkE2OFVW08fHN+zYctMUL6n7LsvZ2g7Orr4wTavivevgcL125rNrS Uq+Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaXXKuzgCvDKYZDYV1hFD8wJMYgehpoPHzl91U9FjwTX1IFARLDq xVFIwHgUD2uhn1EEYCRIQvVRb4FikTgKnN04NkaslL4s
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+QSCKLFCJm6c2qs7XPLMlE27/IkGmUr+5kn+xRu+pxDHkTfq13QK1enGamJyhr+R8KdF/ygiaoaiEnt0aNsYjQ=
X-Received: by 10.176.82.110 with SMTP id j43mr5609590uaa.9.1508191396082; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 15:03:16 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.159.48.129 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 15:03:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 15:03:15 -0700
Message-ID: <CACsn0cnUbMha8ZyP5h3E7zJqo5PinppXRhWxqy2d1b6nF4XmwA@mail.gmail.com>
To: secdir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno.all@ietf.org, iseg@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/YZ30ea7sFItjGYa3mGSldLvOx5I>
Subject: [secdir] Review of draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno-10
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 22:03:22 -0000
Dear all, 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. The summary of the review is that the writing and most of the structure is fine, but I am a bit confused by some of the security properties and how they are stated. It is not clear to me why the unpredictability of generated session IDs is required. It is also not clear to me that the requirement that a TEP produce different keys for different transcripts is strong enough: we need to ensure that every TEP produces different keys (with high probability) (and session identifiers) for different transcripts to prevent cross-protocol attacks. Sincerely, Watson Ladd
- [secdir] Review of draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno-10 Watson Ladd
- Re: [secdir] Review of draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno-10 David Mazieres
- Re: [secdir] Review of draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno-10 Watson Ladd
- [secdir] New TCP-ENO draft David Mazieres