Subject: [Roll] [roll] #116: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01.txt --- Include/fix/verify definitions/terms

From: "roll issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 17:28:37 -0000

#116: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01.txt ---  Include/fix/verify
definitions/terms

 Comments done by Stephen Kent (SK), source:[http://www.ietf.org/mail-
 archive/web/secdir/current/msg03712.html] and [http://www.ietf.org/mail-
 archive/web/secdir/current/msg03848.html][[BR]]
 Comments done by Sean Turner (ST), source:
 [https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-security-
 threats/ballot/]

 === Section 3[[BR]]
 * Section 3 gets off to a poor start. The definition of “security”
 introduced here is too generic, and quickly needs to be qualified to add
 notions of authorization, authentication, confidentiality, and timeliness.
 --by SK

 === Section 3.1[[BR]]
 * 3.1  Also there's a database but it's not listed is that part of
 "memory"?  Isn't "node" without a qualifier missing too? -- by ST

 === Section 3.3[[BR]]
 * 3.3 – The phrase “sleepy node” is introduced, but was not defined in the
 terminology section.--by SK[[BR]]
 * s3.3: maybe: sleepy node: A node that is not functional, but immediately
 available.--by ST

 === Section 4[[BR]]
 * s4: We need to either define the threat sources or point to RFC 4593.
 There's really only two outsiders and byzantine.--by ST

 === Section 4.1[[BR]]
 * 4.1- The term “traffic analysis” is much broader than what the authors
 suggest here. Even without access to headers per se, one can examine the
 size of messages and the frequency of transmission, and both of these are
 examples of traffic analysis.--by SK

 === Section 4.4.1/4.2[[BR]]
 * 4.2 –The terms “overclaiming” and “misclaiming” are introduced here
 (4.4.1), without being defined earlier. --by SK

 === Section 4.3[[BR]]
 * 4.3- “Selective forwarding,” “wormhole,” and “sinkhole” attacks are
 mentioned, without definition. Using a diagram to illustrate these attacks
 is not a substitute for concise definitions. In 4.3.4 “overload” attacks
 are noted, but not defined.  Also, selective forwarding isn’t a routing
 attack, so why is it included here?--by SK

 === Section 4.3.1[[BR]]
 * -   4.3.1: overload attack mentioned, w/o definition-- by SK

 === Section 4.3.2[[BR]]
 * -   4.3.2: selective forwarding, wormhole and sinkhole attacks are
 mentioned, w/o definitions, still-- by SK

 === Section 5[[BR]]
 * 5. – Use of encryption does not counter deliberate exposure attacks. Use
 of encryption, and authentication, is a counter to exposure of routing
 data via passive wiretapping.-- by SK[[BR]]

 === Section 5.1.1[[BR]]
 *   5.1.1: still incorrect assertions re countering deliberate exposure,
 i.e., no mention of authorization-- by SK[[BR]]
 * s5.1.1: encryption does not counter deliberate exposure attacks.-- by ST

 === Section 5.1.3[[BR]]
 * 5.1.3 -  TA is broader in scope than the authors stated earlier, and
 thus the proposed countermeasures are a subset of what might be
 considered.  The discussion here seems to diverge from the routing
 security focus of the document, when the authors discuss TA issues
 relevant to end-user traffic flows.-- by SK

 === Section 6.1[[BR]]
 * 6.1 - What does “privacy” mean here? This is the first use of the term
 in this document.-- by SK

-- 
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
 Reporter:                           |      Owner:
  [email-masked]          |  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect                   |     Status:  new
 Priority:  minor                    |  Milestone:
Component:  security-threats         |    Version:
 Severity:  Active WG Document       |   Keywords:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <https://svn.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/116>
roll <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/>