On 16/10/17 03:15, Jéferson Campos Nobre wrote:
Hi Michael.
I think the security section looks good, but I have some comments, to clarify some passages
My comments:

In Section 9:
"... transit, inject and replay packets "on the wire".  In an insider
   attack, the attacker has access to an autonomic node, or can insert
   packets directly into the ACP."
- I understand the difference between "on the wire" and "directly into the ACP", but I think this should be better explained.

Somehow I was afraid someone would say this. :-(  It's not easy to explain, in simple terms...

How does this sound:

"In an outsider attack all network elements and protocols are securely managed and operating, and an outside attacker can sniff packets in transit, inject and replay packets. In an insider attack, the attacker has access to an autonomic node, or can insert packets directly into the protected ACP."

In Section 9.1:
"...as well as mechanisms specific to
   an autonomic network (such as a secured MASA server)."
- I believe "secured MASA server" can be replaced by "MASA service".

Done.

 "AN specific protocols and methods must also follow traditional
   security methods, in that all packets that can be sniffed or injected
   by an outside attacker are:

   o  protected against modification.

   o  authenticated.

   o  protected against replay attacks.

   o  encrypted."
- I'd rather be consistent using "protection on Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability, and Non-repudiation".

That's not the same :-)  You don't cover re-play attacks.

  "Most AN messages run inside the cryptographically protected ACP.  The
   not protected AN messages outside the ACP are limited to a simple
   discovery method, defined in Section 2.5.2 of [I-D.ietf-anima-grasp]:
   The "Discovery Unsolicited Link-Local (DULL)" message, with detailed
   rules on its usage."
- Since it is a important exception, I think the usage rules should be replicated here instead of just using a reference to the GRASP I-D.

I respectfully disagree, this would add a lot of detail, and would make the section less readable. I think the reference is better here.

Will push the changes onto the git repo in a minute.

Michael

Cheers.
Jéferson

Em qui, 12 de out de 2017 às 06:23, Michael H. Behringer <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> escreveu:

    As mentioned before, the Security Considerations section needed
    work. I
    have now restructured and to a large extent re-written that section.

    The main focus is on the fact that while AN is auto-protecting, in the
    case of a vulnerability, protocol design error, operational error, the
    attack surface is huge.

    All, especially co-authors: Please read the new section and comment!

    Right now only on github:
    
https://github.com/mbehring/ANIMA-Reference-Model/blob/master/draft-ietf-anima-reference-model.txt

    Other than that:
    - on sections 7.6 and 7.7 I'm waiting for feedback from John.
    - otherwise, to my knowledge, all other input received has been taken
    into account.

    Once 7.6, 7.7 and the security considerations are stable, I'll push a
    new version. Co-authors: Comment now! :-)

    Michael

    _______________________________________________
    Anima mailing list
    [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima


_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima

Reply via email to