Thanks, Rob.
Ben, Rob, Santosh,
I think we're in agreement but just in case.... I agree with Santosh and
would like to extend that principle. I think that to ensure that it's
clear to the readers/users of this technology what vulnerabilities it
covers and what it doesn't, the document needs to include the entire
attack/threat taxonomy. Re: your concern about including
topics/mitigations that the WG has agreed are out of scope, all attacks
should be included but the document should describe the WG consensus on
what mitigation is provided (or is not) by 6962, and what the residual
vulnerabilities are. In the case of client behavior, if the WG decides
(as described in Ticket 55) to specify but not mandate checks that a
client could do, then the relevant section of the analysis would state
this and indicate the residual vulnerabilities. I admit I'm not sure
what would then be put into the Security Considerations section, perhaps
a brief summary and pointers to the relevant sections of the attack
analysis. Per BCP 72, the Security Considerations Section MUST describe
which attacks are out of scope (and why), which attacks are in-scope, etc.
Karen
On 2/18/15 4:07 PM, Rob Stradling wrote:
On 18/02/15 18:50, Ben Laurie wrote:
On 18 February 2015 at 18:36, Santosh Chokhani
<[email protected]> wrote:
Ben,
The document at least should describe what the residual
vulnerability is if the client does not take appropriate/recommended
action.
I agree, and that is what I suggested in my response...
That sounds like this ticket...
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/55
-----Original Message-----
From: Trans [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ben Laurie
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 11:25 AM
To: Karen Seo
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Trans] updated attack analysis
On 17 February 2015 at 19:04, Karen Seo <[email protected]> wrote:
Folks,
Sorry if my message implied that I thought the text was in its final
form. I agree that there is not yet consensus on the text/topic and
that further work is needed. However, if the working group agrees that
the threat analysis should be added to 6962, then I believe it would
be more expedient if the text were incorporated into 6962-bis
sooner rather than later.
Anyone who reviews 6962-bis will then likely review this text,
increasing the number of eyes on it. And having the threat analysis
in the draft will hopefully facilitate its use in ensuring that the
document is consistent/correct/complete. Perhaps we could incorporate
the next revision of the text with any remaining unresolved comments
placed in the issue tracker? What do folks think?
I would happily use it as a starting point for text in 6962-bis, but
I would feel compelled to remove text that attempts to force issues
which the WG has already decided to defer to later documents (such
as the definition of a gossip protocol), or has decided it does not
have jurisdiction over (such as client behaviour).
_______________________________________________
Trans mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
_______________________________________________
Trans mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
_______________________________________________
Trans mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
