Subject: [Geopriv] Part3 RE: Comments on security considerations in draft-ietf-geopriv-lbyr-requirements-01

From: "Roger Marshall" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 22:23:15 -0800

Part 3/3 - Richard's early comments on the requirements.

Please find my response below. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Barnes [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 4:01 PM
> To: 'GEOPRIV'; Roger Marshall
> Subject: Comments on security considerations in 
> draft-ietf-geopriv-lbyr-requirements-01
> 
> Part 3 in a three-part series.
> 1. Comments on introductory text
> 2. Comments on requirements
> 3. Comments on security considerations
> 
> 
> I'm going to reverse myself here and say that this document 
> should explicitly discuss security requirements.  This is 
> mainly because this document needs to get done quickly (i.e., 
> without waiting for draft-barnes-geopriv-lo-sec), and because 
> this document needs to be more specific than that document.  
> (That said, I expect the concerns discussed in lo-sec to be a 
> superset of the concerns here.)
> 
> The high-level structure I have in mind is as follows:
> -- Creating LbyR mechanisms makes endpoint location 
> information accessible to third parties.
> -- The primary risk created by this is the disclosure of 
> location information to parties not authorized by the 
> endpoint to receive it.
> -- There are two methods for preventing this access 1. Access 
> control at dereference requires client authentication and 
> authorization mechanisms 2. Pawn tickets require 
> randomization and strong protection of the URI itself.  In 
> particular, the management protocol require authentication.
> -- In either of these models, there is a risk that 
> implementation defects will allow the access control model to 
> be circumvented.
> 
> I will provide text soon.

Much of this it seems has been being discussed recently on the wg list.
Based on some of the comments observed, it is at least the feeling of
some folks, that these security concerns are still best addressed
through your security document, not in the requirements.

-roger marshall.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this message may be privileged and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, or responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, any review, forwarding, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication or any attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately, and delete it and all attachments from your computer and network.

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv