Subject: [netlmm] #68: Security section should discuss MN identity, not security of network elements

From: netlmm-tracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 07:01:06 -0000

#68: Security section should discuss MN identity, not security of network
elements
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]      |       Owner:  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect                        |      Status:  new                     
 Priority:  major                         |   Milestone:  milestone2              
Component:  draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-req  |     Version:  1.0                     
 Keywords:  REQ draft                     |  
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
 Pekka Savola writes:

    4) section 2.3 discusses the threat where the MN (or malware at MN)
 could
       reveal information such as IP address which would compomise privacy.
 I
       don't think it makes sense to go there here: that's a much much more
 generic
       problem, and I'd say that revealing a care-of IP address is the
 LEAST of
       your privacy worries if you're infected with malware.

    5) the 2nd paragraph of section 2.6 describes that removing MN
 involvement
       in LMM limits the DoS attacks on network infrastructural elements.
       Like privacy, this is a much more generic problem, and I don't think
       this is relevant to the requirements.  It's easy to find out those
       infrastructure devices/addresses via other means, or if not, just
 drop them
hu May 25 03:01:15 2006
Subject: [netlmm] #68: Security section should discuss MN identity,
	not security of network elements
From: netlmm-tracker <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 07:01:06 -0000
Reply-To: [email-masked]

#68: Security section should discuss MN identity, not security of network
elements
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]      |       Owner:  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect                        |      Status:  new                     
 Priority:  major                         |   Milestone:  milestone2              
Component:  draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-req  |     Version:  1.0                     
 Keywords:  REQ draft                     |  
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
 Pekka Savola writes:

    4) section 2.3 discusses the threat where the MN (or malware at MN)
 could
       reveal information such as IP address which would compomise privacy.
 I
       don't think it makes sense to go there here: that's a much much more
 generic
       problem, and I'd say that revealing a care-of IP address is the
 LEAST of
       your privacy worries if you're infected with malware.

    5) the 2nd paragraph of section 2.6 describes that removing MN
 involvement
       in LMM limits the DoS attacks on network infrastructural elements.
       Like privacy, this is a much more generic problem, and I don't think
       this is relevant to the requirements.  It's easy to find out those
       infrastructure devices/addresses via other means, or if not, just
 drop them
       off the net with a big DDoS attack.

       So, I'd completely remove any references to DoS against
 infrastructure
       from this section.  The existing need of no further security is good
       enough as it is.

       However, you may need to think a bit about what if MN ID mapping
       techniques / IP address configuration is not secure enough as it is.
 Then
       you WILL require "extra" (by some definition) security, or run an
 insecure
       network.   Hence, in practice, at least in some networks the
 additional
       work of security the host-based LMM credentials and securing the MN
 ID
       mapping might end up being be equal.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://www1.tools.ietf.org/wg/netlmm/trac/ticket/68>
netlmm <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/netlmm/>

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

       off the net with a big DDoS attack.

       So, I'd completely remove any references to DoS against
 infrastructure
       from this section.  The existing need of no further security is good
       enough as it is.

       However, you may need to think a bit about what if MN ID mapping
       techniques / IP address configuration is not secure enough as it is.
 Then
       you WILL require "extra" (by some definition) security, or run an
 insecure
       network.   Hence, in practice, at least in some networks the
 additional
       work of security the host-based LMM credentials and securing the MN
 ID
       mapping might end up being be equal.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://www1.tools.ietf.org/wg/netlmm/trac/ticket/68>
netlmm <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/netlmm/>

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