If you think so then write that into the draft.
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 09:22:59 -0400
> Von: Marc Linsner begin_of_the_skype_highlighting end_of_the_skype_highlighting <mlinsner@cisco.com>
> An: Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>, geopriv@ietf.org, hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com
> Betreff: Re: [Geopriv] draft-ietf-geopriv-rfc3825bis
>
>
>
> On 8/10/10 9:17 AM, "Hannes Tschofenig" <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> > The security consideration section in the draft is there to indicate
> what the
> > potential risks are and what should be done about them.
>
> And I'm claiming that the risk is zero, hence we don't need any extra
> guidance.
>
> -Marc-
>
> >
> > I have heard someone saying that "64kb ought to be enough for
> everyone"...
> >
> >
> > -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> >> Datum: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 09:14:11 -0400
> >> Von: Marc Linsner
> >> begin_of_the_skype_highlighting end_of_the_skype_highlighting
> >> <mlinsner@cisco.com>
> >> An: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com>,
> >> geopriv@ietf.org
> >> Betreff: Re: [Geopriv] draft-ietf-geopriv-rfc3825bis
> >
> >> Hannes,
> >>
> >> Think about what you are saying.
> >>
> >> The only medium currently in use that works as you posit is 802.11.
> How
> >> practical (or even possible) is it to use DHCP to provide device level
> >> location values on a wireless network? Think thru how one might
> implement
> >> such a mechanism and you'll realize it ain't gonna happen!
> >>
> >> -Marc-
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 8/10/10 9:09 AM, "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)"
> >> <hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Think about a regular hotel network.
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: ext Marc Linsner [mailto:mlinsner@cisco.com]
> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 3:59 PM
> >>>> To: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo); geopriv@ietf.org
> >>>> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] draft-ietf-geopriv-rfc3825bis
> >>>>
> >>>> Hannes,
> >>>>
> >>>> What specific network type(s) are you worried about?
> >>>>
> >>>> -Marc-
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 8/10/10 8:25 AM, "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)"
> >>>> <hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> But the conclusion is missing: if you are on a shared link
> >>>> then you must
> >>>>> not share location at the level of the individual hosts. I fear that
> >>>>> those who implement and deploy would not get the point and would
> >>>>> nevertheless reveal information and put the user at risk.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>> From: ext Marc Linsner [mailto:mlinsner@cisco.com]
> >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 3:23 PM
> >>>>>> To: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo); geopriv@ietf.org
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] draft-ietf-geopriv-rfc3825bis
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hannes,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 8/10/10 3:33 AM, "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)"
> >>>>>> <hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> during the GEOPRIV meeting I mentioned missing text in
> >>>>>>> draft-ietf-geopriv-rfc3825bis regarding security.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> DHCP does not provide confidentiality protection as a
> >>>>>> built-in feature.
> >>>>>>> As Marc mentioned in response to issue#23 (see
> >>>>>>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/geopriv/trac/ticket/23) every
> >>>>>> target would
> >>>>>>> be given the exact same location information on a shared medium.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Unfortunately, the security consideration section does not
> >>>>>> mention this
> >>>>>>> aspect with a single word.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Not true, currently in the security consideration section of
> >>>>>> the draft:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> " Since there is no privacy protection for DHCP messages, an
> >>>>>> eavesdropper who can monitor the link between the DHCP
> >>>> server and
> >>>>>> requesting client can discover this LCI."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I don't believe more text is needed.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -Marc-
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hence, I suggest to add:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "
> >>>>>>> Since there is no confidentiality protection for DHCP
> >>>>>> messages, an
> >>>>>>> eavesdropper who can monitor the link between the DHCP
> >>>> server and
> >>>>>>> requesting client can discover this LCI. In cases
> >>>> where multiple
> >>>>>>> hosts share the same link and can therefore see each
> >>>> others DHCP
> >>>>>>> messages the DHCP MUST NOT hand out location for
> >>>> individual hosts
> >>>>>>> but MUST rather provide location of the DHCP relay,
> >>>> DHCP server,
> >>>>>>> or a similar device instead. This ensures that none of the end
> >>>>>>> devices are able to learn exact information of the other hosts
> >>>>>>> on the same network.
> >>>>>>> "
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Ciao
> >>>>>>> Hannes
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>> Geopriv mailing list
> >>>>>>> Geopriv@ietf.org
> >>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Geopriv mailing list
> >> Geopriv@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
