Subject: [multipathtcp] I-D Action:draft-ietf-mptcp-threat-02.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 06:30:01 -0700 (PDT)

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Multipath TCP Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Threat Analysis for Multi-addressed/Multi-path TCP
	Author(s)       : M. Bagnulo
	Filename        : draft-ietf-mptcp-threat-02.txt
	Pages           : 15
	Date            : 2010-03-29

Multi-addresses/Multi-path TCP (MPTCP for short) describes the
extensions proposed for TCP so that each endpoint of a given TCP
connection can use multiple IP addresses to exchange data (instead of
a single IP address per endpoint as currently defined).  Such
extensions enable the exchange of segments using different source-
destination address pairs, resulting in the capability of using
multiple paths in a significant number of scenarios.  In particular,
some level of multihoming and mobility support can be achieved
through these extensions.  However, the support for multiple IP
addresses per endpoint may have implications on the security of the
resulting MPTCP protocol.  This note includes a threat analysis for
MPTCP.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mptcp-threat-02.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:34:54 +0200

Hi,

I have updated the draft to reflect what we agreed in the last meeting
I have added the following section

7.  Reccomendation

    The presented analysis shows that there is a tradeoff between the
    complexity of the security solution and the residual threats.  In
    order to define a proper security solution, we need to assess the
    tradeoff and make a recommendation.  After evaluating the different
    aspects in the MPTCP WG, our conclusion is that the default security
    mechanisms for MPTCP should be to exchange a key in the establishment
    of the first subflow and then secure following address additions by
    using a keyed HMAC using the exchanged key (i.e. similar to the one
    used by SCTP).

    In addition, our recommendation is that the MPTCP protocol should be
    extensible and it should able to accommodate multiple security
    solutions, in order to enable the usage of more secure mechanisms if
    needed.

If people agree with this, i think the document is done.

Regards, marcelo

El 29/03/10 15:30, [email-masked] escribió:
> _______________________________________________
> multipathtcp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp
>

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:47:26 +0100

Hi
during the Anaheim Friday meeting we discussed MPTCP security. Marcelo presented various options, with their pros and cons (see slides). The feeling of people at the meeting was that we should go forward with an SCTP-like security solution - see Marcelo's email below. Different security options have not been discussed that much before, so we should allow a bit of time for this to be discussed - please think about the issue, raise questions, bring up other options etc. 
 
Especially if you weren't at the meeting, please say whether or not you think an SCTP-like security mechanism is the right way forward
 
best wishes
phil & yoshifumi

________________________________

From: [email-masked] on behalf of marcelo bagnulo braun
Sent: Mon 29/03/2010 14:34
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] I-D Action:draft-ietf-mptcp-threat-02.txt

Hi,

7.  Reccomendation

Regards, marcelo