Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-netconf-monitoring

Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> Thu, 17 June 2010 11:20 UTC

Return-Path: <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
X-Original-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 831FF3A699C; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 04:20:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.137
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.137 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.028, BAYES_40=-0.185, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GtYShkVDmjdO; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 04:19:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 753F53A6991; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 04:19:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (demetrius1.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.46]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4A66C001E; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 13:20:03 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius1.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2lCBb1Levami; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 13:20:02 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from elstar.local (elstar.iuhb02.iu-bremen.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 546A0C001A; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 13:20:02 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id C63E01342766; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 13:19:55 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 13:19:55 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
To: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
Message-ID: <20100617111955.GA13803@elstar.local>
Mail-Followup-To: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>, Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-netconf-monitoring@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netconf-monitoring@tools.ietf.org>, IESG IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
References: <4C11ED2B.1070707@deployingradius.com> <20100611080956.GA5257@elstar.local> <tsl631ipkqu.fsf@mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <tsl631ipkqu.fsf@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Cc: IESG IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-netconf-monitoring@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netconf-monitoring@tools.ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-netconf-monitoring
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 11:20:25 -0000

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 02:26:33AM +0200, Sam Hartman wrote:
 
> I'll admit that if I read the netconf document and it described
> something as "secure transport," it would raise a concern in my mind.
> "secure" as an adjective is generally meaningless.  Typically it's
> applied to make people feel that security objectives are met without
> actually stating those objectives.
> 
> Presumably by secure, you mean something like:
> 
> * Transport authenticates identity of server to client and client to
>   server
> * Transport provides integrity protection and confidentiality for data
>   transported
> * Transport provides replay protection on a per-session level as well as
>   within a session
> 
> I'd be far more interested in the core document making these security
> services explicit than in having it replace all instances of transport
> with "secure transport."

There is text in section 2 of draft-ietf-netconf-4741bis-02 talking
about security requirements of the transports - and this text is
pretty much the same as the text that can be found in section 2 of RFC
4741. I will go over the text to see whether it can be further
tightened or detailed (e.g. I see replay protection is not explicitely
mentioned). But it definitely not the case that "secure transport" is
a meaningless adjective in the NETCONF world even today.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>