Subject: [Roll] [roll] #160 (security-threats): draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-07--Nits to fix

From: "roll issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 11:02:27 -0000

#160: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-07--Nits to fix

 Robert Cragie on 2014-07-14 wrote:

 "Just a few comments remaining (mostly nits):

 Section 4.2: "applied to RPL; in particular" -> "applied to RPL in
 particular"
 Section 4.2: "In the context of RPL" -> "In the context of RPL:"
 Section 6.1: "An attacker can assert an arbitrary identity," -> "An
 attacker that can assert an arbitrary identity,". I actually think the
 whole sentence is unnecessary.
 Section 6.1.3: "join a network with any identify" -> "join a network using
 any identity"
 Section 6.1.3: "battery, ram, bandwidth" -> "battery, RAM, bandwidth"
 Section 6.2: "This threat results" -> "These attacks may result"
 "Figure 4: sinkhole attack" -> "Figure 4: Sinkhole attack"
 Section 7.1.2: "well-equiped" -> "well-equipped"
 Section 7.1.2 "particularly vulnerable to passive (and active) attacks
 through compromises of nodes" -> "vulnerable to passive (and active)
 routing attacks through compromises of nodes (see Section 8.2)." Slight
 modification and add reference.
 Section 8: "endemnic to this field" -> "endemic in this field"
 Section 8: General comment - much tidier, good job!
 Section 8.2: "However, some RPL messages are broadcast, and even when per-
 node layer-2 security mechanisms are used, the integrity and origin
 authentication of broadcast messages can not be as securely known". How so
 - due to using a group/network wide key? If so, maybe state that.
 Suggested change: "However, some RPL messages are broadcast and even when
 per-node layer-2 security mechanisms are used, the integrity and origin
 authentication of broadcast messages cannot be as trusted due to the
 proliferation of the key used to secure them."
 Section 8.2:
 "RPL has two specific messages which are broadcast: the DODAG Information
 Object (DIO), and the DODAG Information Solicitation (DIS).  The purpose
 of the DIS is to cause potential parents to reply with a DIO, so the
 integrity of the DIS is not of great concern.  The DIS may also be
 unicast"

 These are not actually messages; there is only one RPL Control Message.
 Therefore need to rephrase:

 "RPL has two specific options which are present in broadcast RPL Control
 Messages: the DODAG Information Object (DIO), and the DODAG Information
 Solicitation (DIS).  The purpose of the DIS is to cause potential parents
 to reply with an RPL Control Message containing a DIO, so the integrity of
 the DIS is not of great concern.  The DIS may also be unicast"

 "RPL provides for assymetric authentication at layer-3 of the DIO, and
 this may be waranteed in some deployments." -> "RPL provides for
 asymmetric authentication at layer 3 of the RPL Control Message carrying
 the DIO and this may be warranted in some deployments."

 Section 8.3 still doesn't read right.

 Section 11: "Robert Craigie" -> "Robert Cragie" :-) "

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

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/160>
roll <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/>

---

From: "roll issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 01:07:16 -0000

Changes (by [email-masked]):

 * owner:  [email-masked] => [email-masked]
 * status:  new => assigned

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

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/160#comment:1>
roll <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/>

---

From: "roll issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 13:13:50 -0000

* status:  assigned => closed
 * resolution:   => fixed

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

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/160#comment:2>
roll <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/>