Subject: Re: [Dhcpv6bis] [dhcpv6bis] #138 (XML 3315): Security considerations update needed

From: "dhcpv6bis issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 19:45:50 -0000

#138: Security considerations update needed

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 Please note that the following are also issues with the current text:

 - We have removed Authentication (except for Reconfigure Key), so the
 following paragraph, at a minimum, needs to be removed:

    DHCP authentication provides for authentication of the identity of
    DHCP clients and servers, and for the integrity of messages delivered
    between DHCP clients and servers.  DHCP authentication does not
    provide any privacy for the contents of DHCP messages.

 And also:

    To guard against attacks through prefix delegation, requesting
    routers and delegating routers SHOULD use DHCP authentication as
    described in ...

-- 
----------------------------------------+----------------------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]  |       Owner:
     Type:  task                        |  [email-masked]
 Priority:  P1 blocker                  |      Status:  assigned
Component:  XML 3315                    |   Milestone:  E Editor issues
 Keywords:                              |  Resolution:
                                        |    Due Date:  04/02/2015
----------------------------------------+----------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/ticket/138#comment:2>
dhcpv6bis <http://tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/>

---

From: "dhcpv6bis issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2016 12:31:28 -0000

Changes (by [email-masked]):

 * cc: [email-masked] (added)

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/ticket/138#comment:3>
dhcpv6bis <http://tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/>

---

From: "dhcpv6bis issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 18:39:07 -0000

Changes (by [email-masked]):

 * status:  assigned => closed
 * resolution:   => fixed

Comment:

 Removed references to DHCP obsoleted authentication.
 Added reference to 7610 (DHCPv6-Shield).

 Did not address:

    Another issue that should probably be at least mentioned is the case
 where a server sends reconfigure-key and then crashes. Any other server
 will not have necessary key information, so it can't trigger reconfigure.
 Perhaps this issue should be discussed in a separate subsection and only
 referenced in security considerations?

 Perhaps 'crash' here was referring to a disk crash (where lease DB is
 lost)? A server crash by itself shouldn't cause issues since just like the
 lease details, the reconfigure key should be committed to disk before sent
 to the client. So, I can see an issue with losing the DB, but you also
 lose the leases then and so wouldn't know what to reconfigure.

 Thus I feel this should be ignored.

 The privacy section was already added a while back.

 I'm going to close this ticket; if someone has further issues, either
 update the document directly or reopen this ticket with details.

-- 
----------------------------------------+----------------------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]  |       Owner:
     Type:  task                        |  [email-masked]
 Priority:  P1 blocker                  |      Status:  closed
Component:  XML 3315                    |   Milestone:  E Editor issues
 Keywords:                              |  Resolution:  fixed
                                        |    Due Date:  04/02/2015
----------------------------------------+----------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/ticket/138#comment:4>
dhcpv6bis <http://tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/>