Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-pcp-base

"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Wed, 14 March 2012 01:07 UTC

Return-Path: <dwing@cisco.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 30D3821F85A1; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 18:07:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -109.208
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.208 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.391, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7mjk29KZc4PQ; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 18:07:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtv-iport-2.cisco.com (mtv-iport-2.cisco.com [173.36.130.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BFF521F85A0; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 18:07:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; l=2851; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1331687276; x=1332896876; h=from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Z29SJJJTGgIFcyM2qW9wLKxwR81nKN81CgMzi31iC/c=; b=OS1m726SE5VpMNoT/YNlDqCr7hNN/X2IV58LcJPeOVpSOsMo0EZT1S0+ dRg2DNKjOFvjmJnezagGkJsQxgNvZHu7TjHEvNKyh2wYZc9HlfkctUNKH gls/55qUTsdW9j0zIW3TPWOsgnFOAy6CFPkOt7Mom6kbtcS652I2H52qL w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgIFADHuX0+rRDoH/2dsb2JhbABDpg+PZYEHggkBAQEDAQgKARcQRAcBAwIJDgECBAEBKAcZIwoJCAEBBAESCxeHYwScTQGebZB2BIhVhRKYDIMF
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,580,1325462400"; d="scan'208";a="36014009"
Received: from mtv-core-2.cisco.com ([171.68.58.7]) by mtv-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Mar 2012 01:07:56 +0000
Received: from dwingWS ([10.32.240.194]) by mtv-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q2E17uUO029804; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 01:07:56 GMT
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
To: 'Dan Harkins' <dharkins@lounge.org>, iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pcp-base.all@tools.ietf.org
References: <abbfc1b88426c9b3afad1be54d9f6acf.squirrel@www.trepanning.net>
In-Reply-To: <abbfc1b88426c9b3afad1be54d9f6acf.squirrel@www.trepanning.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 18:07:56 -0700
Message-ID: <0a8301cd017e$e4091540$ac1b3fc0$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Acz3GtTmpExhpeVqSVyZmWzmYXKQRQKY6o6g
Content-Language: en-us
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-pcp-base
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 01:07:57 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Harkins [mailto:dharkins@lounge.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 11:46 AM
> To: iesg@ietf.org; secdir@ietf.org; draft-ietf-pcp-
> base.all@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: secdir review of draft-ietf-pcp-base
> 
> 
>   My apologies for the tardiness of this review. The tracker says
> it's on the agenda for the next telechat so maybe this isn't completely
> useless.
> 
>   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 draft describes a simple request/response protocol to create
> and manage mappings on upstream devices (like NATs) to control how
> incoming packets get forwarded. It defines two threat models (a simple
> one and an advanced one) that seem reasonable for the different use
> cases. The Security Considerations are well-written and address all
> attacks I could think of. The draft is very well-written and complete.
> 
>   PCP has a THIRD_PARTY option in which a PCP client can create a
> mapping on a PCP server for a different device. This has the potential
> for abuse. The implications of this option are mentioned somewhat in
> passing in the section that describes the option ("Determining which
> PCP
> clients are authorized to use the THIRD_PARTY Option for which other
> hosts is deployment-dependent....A cryptographic authentication and
> authorization model is outside the scope of this specification") but
> it would be nice if they were addressed a bit more in the Security
> Considerations section. It would be nice to see mention of:
> 
>   a) what capabilities should a PCP server have to properly address
>      authorization of requests that include the THIRD_PARTY option;
> and,
>   b) what are the implications of enabling the THIRD_PARTY option on a
>      PCP server? In other words, what does a user need to understand
>      before he enables it?

In -24, I added the following new paragraph to the THIRD_PARTY
section.  It doesn't fully answer your point, but provides some 
guidance to when and where THIRD_PARTY is intended to be used:

   A management device would use this Option to control a PCP server on
   behalf of users.  For example, a management device located in a
   network operations center, which presents a user interface to end
   users or to network operations staff, and issues PCP requests with
   the THIRD_PARTY option to the appropriate PCP server.

> I understand that this is a very tardy request, my apologies again, so
> I understand if this comment is not resolved.

-d