Hi Paul,

On Sep 9, 2014, at 3:40 PM, Paul <[email protected]> wrote:

> 
> 
>> On Sep 9, 2014, at 5:40, Les Leposo <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> imho, this would be useful for bring-up work i.e. for both developers and 
>> deployers.
>> 
>> However, as folks already pointed out, there are significant security 
>> tradeoffs (and mitigations) that SHOULD/MUST to be explicated (i.e.more 
>> verbiage).
>> Points to consider:
>> 1) allowing unauthenticated IKE-SAs (and in turn CHILD-SAs) to be 
>> established, would open up opportunities for ikev2 "exhaustion attacks" that 
>> previously weren't there (on the server side), no?
> 
> Yes it could use up some more CPU and ram. But it's a trade of the admin 
> makes.
Concur, but the admin would need to be given sufficient warning, through this 
document.

> 
>> 2) this feature could also tempt network admins to fallback to 'null 
>> authentication' as a work-around/short-cut in cases where they are unable to 
>> properly configure a deployment.
> 
> Or they just configure a psk "test". No difference.

> 
>> It would help if better use cases are highlighted:
>> A) the anonymity use case is subjective because, one could simply use a 
>> psk/cert that identifies an "access group" as opposed to an "individual" 
>> psk/cert, no?
> 
> Not sure what you mean with subjective in this context. But one sided 
> anonymity isn't the same as both ends authenticating with psk "test". The 
> server can still use a strong rsa key that the client authenticates. It is 
> just that the server doesn't authenticate the client because it accepts 
> crypto from anyone.
But accepting crypto from anyone is like a big "Kick Me" sign on the server's 
spec sheet.

> 
>> B) the "low power" sensor use case is also subjective because, if the sensor 
>> data is truly confidential, would you want to make sure the sensor wont be 
>> redirected to a rogue/fake server?
> 
> Same here. The iot device can have a firmware rsa key of the server used to 
> authenticate the server, while the client is not authenticated.
> 
Great.

> Paul
> 
>> 

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

Reply via email to