Subject: [Manet-dt] MANET packet security

From: "Ian Chakeres" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 16:08:56 -0700

The OLSRv2 ND ID elaborates on several of the security issues related
to our MANET protocols and it got me thinking...

I think the base specs of our MANET protocols should include a
mechanism to secure packets, that is authenticate the source, as well
as ensure the contents of the packet have not been modified, replayed,
etc.

I believe that a framework like that in SEND (rfc3971, see Section 4 &
9.2) will work for MANET packets. Additional security will likely need
to be added for more security related to the information passed around
the network, but the SEND framework can be the first step in that
direction.

Is anyone aware of something like SEND for IP packets? I would rather
not reinvent the wheel.

If we need to do this type of procedure, I think it should probably
live with the packetBB document or another BB document. What do you
think?

Ian

rfc3756 is another good read = " IPv6 Neighbor Discovery (ND) Trust
Models and Threats"

One more thing - I think for the base MANET specs we should operate
under the following assumption (rfc3756), where all nodes are MANET
routers. More complex scenarios need not be included in the base spec.

"""
Trust Model
       A model where all authenticated nodes trust each other to behave
       correctly at the IP layer and not to send any ND or RD messages
       that contain false information.  This model is thought to
       represent a situation where the nodes are under a single
       administration and form a closed or semi-closed group.  A
       corporate intranet is a good example.
"""

_______________________________________________
Manet-dt mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt

---

From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 17:04:46 +0100

> draft-fenner-zinin-rtg-standard-reqts-01.txt
>
> 4.1.  Requirements for Proposed Standard
>
>   3.  The security architecture of the protocol must be set forth
>       explicitly.  The security architecture must include mechanisms
>       for authenticating protocol messages and may include other forms
>       of protection.
>
> I'm unsure how we can achieve this requirement without something like
> what I described.

Yes, that's a problem I'd overlooked (more needed than I'd thought).
I need to think further. One thing I remain sure of though is that
packetbb is the wrong place (it's a protocol-free document, and
putting protocol in would be a bad idea). If it's a building block,
it's a separate building block. I'm also not sure how we square the
quite different architectural constraints that different users of
MANETs will have regarding issues like sharing of secret information.

********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************