Hello folks,
Integration with saodv should be counted as a separate project, a new
requirement not identified in the manet charter.
It would have the effect of delaying last call, I am pretty sure.
Regards,
Charlie P.
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [manet] draft-perkins-manet-aodv-e2esec-00
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2016 12:59:50 +0100
From: Anders Nilsson Plymoth <lanilsson@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Charlie Perkins <charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
CC: Mobile Ad Hoc Networks mailing list <manet@xxxxxxxx>
Hi Charlie,
I understand you are mainly addressing E2E protection here, with regards
to RREQ and RREP, but I am of the strong opinion that AODVv2 should have
a more integrated security model, rather than ad hoc.
The use of HMACs for message authentication is a well known and well
used approach. However, the use of HMAC implies the use of symmetric
keys, and the question is how this key distribution should take place. I
have seen hints of the usage of a single shared key, but this seems a
little naive to me.
I would instead argue for a signature based approach, i.e. the use of
public keys and certificates. This is the approach that was proposed for
the SAODV draft, and although that draft is clearly outdated, I think
the general idea there is good.
Regarding RFC 7182 instead of RFC 4868? Yes, definitely. You already
rely on RFC 7182 for the security considerations of the AODVv2 draft.
However, in the AODVv2 draft you mainly consider integrity protection,
and less that of authentication. Also, this draft,
draft-perkins-manet-aodv-e2esec-00 seems to address integrity more than
authentication.
In summary, what I personally would like to see is a stronger
integration of RFC 7182 and its concepts into the AODVv2 protocol
specification, that also addresses authentication and key management
considerations. As it is, it would be very hard to read the AODVv2 and
its security considerations and build an implementation that
incorporates RFC 7182, and have different implementations inter-operable.
Thanks,
Anders
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 11:24 PM, Charlie Perkins
<charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
wrote:
Hello folks,
In order to promote useful discussion about the security model for
AODVv2, I have submitted a new draft with an idea to enable the
source and destination of a Route Discovery to verify that they were
indeed the source and destination of the route that was discovered.
This is not a guarantee of a useful route, because intermediate
routers are not authenticated, only the endpoints. Nevertheless the
idea seems like a useful adjunct to the existing hop-by-hop security
as currently specified in AODVv2.
It can use more work:
- Should RFC 7182 be specified instead of RFC 4868? If so, what is
the simplest way to make the conversion?
- Should other message types be covered as well? This would be
pretty simple; I just need to reword the section specifying the
input data.
I only used RFC 4868 because it seemed very straightforward for me
to understand.
Comments are solicited and welcome. The content of the document may
well belong in the upcoming revision of AODVv2 that will be provide
resolutions for the many recent comments.
Regards,
Charlie P.
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@xxxxxxxx <mailto:manet@xxxxxxxx>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet