Re: [secdir] Security review of draft-ietf-pce-questions-06

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

OK, thanks, that's clear what you'd like.

Not sure I like the approach, but I now have something to chew on. I'll get back to you.

A

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Laurie [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: 10 July 2014 17:02
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: IETF Discussion List; [e-mail]; The IESG
> Subject: Re: Security review of draft-ietf-pce-questions-06
> 
> On 10 July 2014 16:58, Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Hi Ben,
> >
> > So you don't like my proposed solution?
> >
> > I am not quite sure what you do consider a resolution to your concern. I can see
> three options:
> >
> > 1. Add security-related text to each section of this document.
> > 2. Beef up the Security Considerations section with a subsection related to each
> section of the document.
> > 3. Add a new section "How Secure is my PCE-Enabled System?" as I suggested.
> >
> > Do you have a preference among these, or is there another option you like
> better?
> 
> I prefer 1, that way the security advice is likely to be read by
> whoever reads that section - that is, by the people who are likely to
> benefit from it.
> 
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Adrian
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ben Laurie [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >> Sent: 09 July 2014 15:04
> >> To: [e-mail]
> >> Cc: IETF Discussion List; [e-mail]; The IESG
> >> Subject: Re: Security review of draft-ietf-pce-questions-06
> >>
> >> On 9 July 2014 09:55, Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> > Hi Ben,
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for taking the time to review this document and for posting your
> >> comments to the IETF discussion list so that we can consider them as last call
> >> comments.
> >> >
> >> > [snip]
> >> >
> >> >> The security considerations section makes this claim:
> >> >>
> >> >> "This informational document does not define any new protocol elements
> >> >> or mechanism.  As such, it does not introduce any new security
> >> >> issues."
> >> >>
> >> >> I agree with the premise, but not the conclusion: just because an RFC
> >> >> does not introduce new security issues, that does not mean that there
> >> >> are no security considerations.
> >> >>
> >> >> Indeed, this RFC discusses many things that have quite serious
> >> >> security considerations, without mentioning any of them. For example,
> >> >> section 4 "How Do I Find My PCE?" (the very first question) advocates
> >> >> a number of potentially completely insecure mechanisms with no mention
> >> >> of their security properties (or otherwise). This is obviously
> >> >> pervasive, given the stance taken in the security considerations.
> >> >>
> >> >> The document does mention that RFC 6952 gives a security analysis for
> >> >> PCEP, and perhaps this is sufficient but it seems to me that a
> >> >> document intended to give useful background information to noobs
> >> >> should include security directly in that information rather than defer
> >> >> to another giant document (which mixes PCEP info with other
> >> >> protocols).
> >> >
> >> > I don't believe that this document is strong on "advocacy", but discusses
> which
> >> tools are out there and what some people do.
> >> >
> >> > Previous PCE RFCs have given some attention to security concerns in the use
> of
> >> PCE (RFC 4655), PCE discovery (RFC 4674, RFC 5088. RFC 5089), and the PCEP
> (RFC
> >> 4657 and RFC 5440). As such, "PCE Security" was not deemed by the authors to
> be
> >> a previously "unanswered question" and so did not need attention in this
> >> document.
> >> >
> >> > That said, you are correct that the various sections do not discuss the
> security
> >> implications relating to those sections. I would be pretty loathe to add security
> >> text to each section in this document: I think that would make the document
> >> heavy and less likely to be read by its intended consumers (it is not targeting
> >> "noobs" although they are welcome to read it).
> >>
> >> Your position appears to be that they will then go on to read much
> >> heavier documents in order to discover the security properties of the
> >> solutions you suggest, which seems a little unlikely, particularly if
> >> there's no mention of the necessity to do so.
> >>
> >> Or perhaps you think security is not important?
> >>
> >> > Perhaps a solution to this *is* to treat Security as an unanswered question
> and
> >> add a section "How Secure is my PCE-Enabled System?" I can't think of a lot to
> >> add there except for general egg-sucking guidance, but there would be a
> pointer
> >> to the TCP-AO discussions currently going on in the WG. What do you think of
> >> that as a way forward?
> >>
> >> I have no idea what discussions are going on, but once more, if you
> >> are concerned about "heaviness" of documentation, pointing at ongoing
> >> discussions does not strike me as a route to lightness.
> >