Valery Smyslov writes:
> > Thanks for the detailed clarification, and I still disagree... This 
> > situation is very unlikely with correctly functioning peers, and I don't 
> > think we should recommend acting on unauthenticated information, even if 
> > it slightly improves performance. Actually, I think it is a prototypical 
> > premature optimization.
> 
> What else could we recommend to do in this situation?
> If responder deletes IKE SA in case it receives IKE_AUTH
> message that doesn't pass ICV check, then it would give
> an attacker an easy way to prevent legitimate initiator
> to connect - just monitor the network and once IKE_SA_INIT
> from the legitimate client is finished, inject IKE_AUTH message
> containing garbage.

I suggest we do similar thing we do for IKEv2 in general. I.e. if you
get IKE_AUTH message which does not pass ICV, you simply drop it. I
would expect most of the implementations do that already. Also before
you can verify the ICV you need to know the SK_a and to be able to get
that you need to calculate SKEYSEED, which requires g^ir, i.e 2nd half
of Diffie-Hellman.

So at that point you have already calculated the Diffie-Hellman. Also
implementation would be completley stupid if it would not store the
SKEYSEED and SK_* keys once it has calculated them, so I would expect
every implementation do that already, i.e. they will already keep
them, and there is no need to say anything about this in here.

> If responder keeps half-open IKE SA for a while waiting
> for more IKE_AUTH messages, then I see no reason to repeat
> calculating D-H shared secret with every received message -
> the result will be exacly the same.

Why would anybody ever repeat the D-H secret calculation, when they
have already calculated SKEYSEED (and SK_*) earlier?

Do we also need to say that for future notificaitons it would be nice
for implementations to keep the "cached" SK_* values stored in IKE SA,
and not to calculate the SK_* from the KE payloads for every single
packet? I do not think we need to say such thing, and I do not think
we need to say that once you have calculated the SK_* you keep them
until you delete the IKE SA.
-- 
[email protected]

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

Reply via email to