Re: [secdir] SecDir review of draft-ietf-netlmm-pmipv6-mib-05

Vincent Roca <> Wed, 13 April 2011 06:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC036E070E; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 23:51:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.049
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.049 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_46=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_53=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O8yOngtiMQmF; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 23:51:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 584D2E070D; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 23:51:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.64,203,1301868000"; d="scan'208";a="105527269"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 13 Apr 2011 08:50:59 +0200
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Vincent Roca <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 08:50:59 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
To: "Glenn M. Keeni" <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc:, IESG <>,
Subject: Re: [secdir] SecDir review of draft-ietf-netlmm-pmipv6-mib-05
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 06:51:03 -0000

Hi Glenn,

>> ** What about the completeness of the two lists provided in
>> section 6?
>> For instance the MIB defines the pmip6Capabilities object with
>> attribute MAX-ACCESS read-only (see p. 13). However this object
>> is not listed in the security considerations sections. Is it
>> a mistake? If yes, then does anything miss (I didn't check)?
> This is not a mistake. Since it is read only, its value cannot
> be changed by an attacker. And, revealing the capabilities cannot
> be as harmful as other objects e.g. pmip6Status. [ I will agree
> that a miscreant may want to physically destroy all objects that
> have LMA and or MAG capabilities in order to shutdown a PMIPv6
> network. The pmip6Capabilities object may be misused in that manner. But
> that is a generic argument, and holds for ALL the PMIPv6MIB
> objects.] So, we have not listed this object as one which is
> "particularly sensitive and/or private".
> The generic risk aspects are covered in the last paragraph of the
> security considerations section [copied from the boilerplate].
> The 2 lists are complete to our knowledge.
> Please let us know if there are any risks/vulnerabilities that
> are worth mentioning.

If there are good reasons not to list this object, I don't have
any objection.

> The remaining comments relate to the boilerplate which we have
> followed to the dot.

Yes, this is what Juergen explained. Maybe it's time to update
the boilerplate a little bit, but that's a different topic.