Subject: RE: [AAA-WG]: Issue 303: Security model for peer discovery and re direct

From: "Pat R. Calhoun" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 07:36:07 -0800

Remember that a redirect makes lots of sense in the case where the
redirect server is owned by a "broker". The broker would typically
act as a certificate authority, and would ensure that all of the
roaming consortium members have certificates that are signed by the
CA. This provides the trust that is needed in the protocol.

PatC

- -----Original Message-----
From: Randy Bush [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 4:13 AM
To: David Frascone
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [AAA-WG]: Issue 303: Security model for peer discovery
and redirect

security should not be an "implementation issue."  authentication of
a referred host by the host which receives their request would seem
to be pretty basic security.

on first blush, it seems to me that there are only three ways to
solve this (but it's still early here)

  o trusted referrer gives referee a signed cert to be handed to
    the host to which they refer them

  o trusted referrer acts as a relay/proxy, with all the kink
    that gets us

  o never talk to folk with whom you do not have a configured
    relationship

oh, and then there is hanging your butt out there in the breeze
waiting to be killed

randy

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 11:08:58 -0800

> CA. This provides the trust that is needed in the protocol.

so, if i do not have a signed cert of the host trying to contact me,
the protocol will say that i MUST reject the connection?

randy