Received: from mail115.messagelabs.com (mail115.messagelabs.com [195.245.231.179]) by maillists.intel-research.net (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id n76FqiDG021342 for <dtn-security@maillists.intel-research.net>; Thu, 6 Aug 2009 08:52:45 -0700
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: M.Bhutta@surrey.ac.uk
X-Msg-Ref: server-9.tower-115.messagelabs.com!1249573699!54925732!1
X-StarScan-Version: 6.0.0; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [131.227.102.140]
Received: (qmail 10643 invoked from network); 6 Aug 2009 15:48:19 -0000
Received: from ads40.surrey.ac.uk (HELO ads40.surrey.ac.uk) (131.227.102.140) by server-9.tower-115.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 6 Aug 2009 15:48:19 -0000
Received: from EVS-EC1-NODE2.surrey.ac.uk ([131.227.102.137]) by ads40.surrey.ac.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);  Thu, 6 Aug 2009 16:48:19 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CA16AD.51CBF75E"
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 16:48:19 +0100
Message-ID: <89E48AE60E64EF4E8EB32B0B7EC74920A1B1FD@EVS-EC1-NODE2.surrey.ac.uk>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: security threat model
Thread-Index: AcoWrVG/LnuX4FPZTMqW9trpsm8sMw==
From: <M.Bhutta@surrey.ac.uk>
To: <dtn-security@maillists.intel-research.net>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Aug 2009 15:48:19.0687 (UTC) FILETIME=[52263770:01CA16AD]
Subject: [dtn-security] security threat model
X-BeenThere: dtn-security@maillists.intel-research.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: DTN Security Discussion <dtn-security.maillists.intel-research.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://maillists.intel-research.net/mailman/listinfo/dtn-security>, <mailto:dtn-security-request@maillists.intel-research.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://maillists.intel-research.net/pipermail/dtn-security>
List-Post: <mailto:dtn-security@maillists.intel-research.net>
List-Help: <mailto:dtn-security-request@maillists.intel-research.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://maillists.intel-research.net/mailman/listinfo/dtn-security>, <mailto:dtn-security-request@maillists.intel-research.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 15:52:46 -0000

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01CA16AD.51CBF75E
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,
If we want to define the security threat model for DTN overall, then we =
have to consider all the possibilities while defining the security =
threat model.  We can assume any level of adversary with any level of =
power or control over the communication.. If we say, we have to provide =
following services or have to defend against attacks as given below =
(taken from different DTN internet drafts) ..=20

     1- high level of confidentiality=20
     2- Modification attack=20
     3- Replay Attack,=20
     4- Reflection attack,=20
     5- Certificate modifications=20
     6. Non-DTN threats possibly injections into dtn bundle layer..=20
     7. Have to stop the cause for traffic storms..=20

Different protocols being defined should at least try to defend the =
above defined attacks for DTN overall.. Can there be any different =
perspective for defining threat model for DTN networks..=20

Any comment will be appreciated..=20

regards,
Nasir=20

------_=_NextPart_001_01CA16AD.51CBF75E
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
6.5.7653.38">
<TITLE>security threat model</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Hi,<BR>
If we want to define the security threat model for DTN overall, then we =
have to consider all the possibilities while defining the security =
threat model.&nbsp; We can assume any level of adversary with any level =
of power or control over the communication.. If we say, we have to =
provide following services or have to defend against attacks as given =
below (taken from different DTN internet drafts) ..<BR>
<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 1- high level of confidentiality<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 2- Modification attack<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 3- Replay Attack,<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 4- Reflection attack,<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 5- Certificate modifications<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 6. Non-DTN threats possibly injections into dtn =
bundle layer..<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 7. Have to stop the cause for traffic =
storms..<BR>
<BR>
Different protocols being defined should at least try to defend the =
above defined attacks for DTN overall.. Can there be any different =
perspective for defining threat model for DTN networks..<BR>
<BR>
Any comment will be appreciated..<BR>
<BR>
regards,<BR>
Nasir<BR>
</FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01CA16AD.51CBF75E--