On 13/09/2014 17:40, Markus Stenberg wrote: > On 13.9.2014, at 5.50, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 12/09/2014 22:23, Markus Stenberg wrote: >> ... >>> 1) Can we assume secure L2 and/or appropriate device >>> configuration by the manufacturer/ISP(/user)? (This is what I >>> can assume in my own home.) >> I'm not sure I fully understand this question, but certainly >> there a vast numbers of insecure home 802.11 setups. This is >> less prevalent than it was a few years ago, but it seems like a >> dangerous assumption if homenet-compliant kit is mixed in with >> older stuff such as wireless hubs that are open by default. > > From my point of view, if you’re exposing part of your home network via > insecure wireless, only way to secure it would be to run mandatory crypto > over it both to hosts and routers. I’m not sure this is really feasible > either. Just securing router-router traffic (or parts of it) does not bring > significant benefit from my point of view unless you also authenticate hosts > in such a case.
All true (as are the subsequent comments by Acee and Michael). But the fact remains that we can't assume L2 is secure in the normal case, which is a much worse situation than we traditionally assumed for wired networks. Brian > While securing HNCP in such a case would prevent some attacks on in-home > network auto-configuration, anything else (e.g. using home resources, using > home internet access, pretending to be uplink and performing MITM, the list > goes on) would be still possible and I do not see the point. > > Cheers, > > -Markus. > _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
