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

[Vincent Roca <[e-mail]>]

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.

Cheers,

  Vincent