Re: [tcpm] tcp-auth-opt issue: support for NATs

"Adam Langley" <agl@imperialviolet.org> Wed, 30 July 2008 23:22 UTC

Return-Path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: tcpm-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-tcpm-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79DFA3A6A46; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:22:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA5163A69C1 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:22:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
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 N53eabLElzwO for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:22:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com (rv-out-0506.google.com [209.85.198.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 077453A68A1 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:22:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id b25so231483rvf.49 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:22:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender :to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references :x-google-sender-auth; bh=O6RnZPWUHH49l9kt4eHIoTtCG+rNm9NAGFV44KaJhu0=; b=CWnS5OmQc9yA0BdefYyKe/Gv8slNzqpUxu9HpmLojDfKug/L/A1E+2QLd1yTBL8xIY ZreVd2Q8obCyhasZNYm1UEwVFgeMCutpjW4/N2O8UKrpFtlabwIGQGPJPhXGy7MvhPOP qg3UPhjimu+5t+sSd5Y18BCKCj1nHE0euPx5M=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references:x-google-sender-auth; b=fObkvPG/XG6pRxqmzB5DXXpKBQFQopRHoLZaDtcrYJvU0z5tlefd5uEh5mz6+AqAdd QRhjS8lPHndzgCaHqGAqak+jKUhuL88VavT7WusiYKae1Xf+RbbpQgd9It/JO6lPaopF T6y31UzaMdKuBXPr/OmNfpG0SJamLAVutfpPk=
Received: by 10.141.206.13 with SMTP id i13mr4912383rvq.100.1217460167934; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:22:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.141.186.3 with HTTP; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:22:47 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <396556a20807301622l4cb33deuff73cd13d7a75ba1@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:22:47 -0700
From: Adam Langley <agl@imperialviolet.org>
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
In-Reply-To: <4890F4BE.6060302@isi.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <4890F4BE.6060302@isi.edu>
X-Google-Sender-Auth: c1208b4fd5acf988
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tcpm] tcp-auth-opt issue: support for NATs
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/tcpm>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 4:09 PM, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> wrote:
> Should the document:
>
> a) require the socket pair info always be included in the MAC, i.e., be
> protected
>
> b) allow a TSAD entry to indicate that the socket pair is excluded from
> the MAC?
>
> Finally, does (b) help, given the current keying requirements?

My assumption was that the TSAD could return the same keyset for all
addresses and source ports going to a given destination/port pair. As
an example, a listening socket could be configured such that one could
only connect to it if one knew a key. (Standard proviso's here: the AO
key itself should be a time rotating, secure derived key from the
master secret). If one didn't have the key, not even a SYNACK would be
sent in reply. Once a connection has been established, then the keys
for that connection's 4-tuple can change independent of the wildcard
keys.

If that's a use case that the spec wishes to support, then having an
option to exclude the pseudo-header and TCP port numbers from MAC
protection would allow these connections to traverse NATs.


AGL

-- 
Adam Langley agl@imperialviolet.org http://www.imperialviolet.org
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm