[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

IPSEC Comments





Attached are my comments on the 5 IPSEC documents

     draft-ietf-ipsec-arch-00.txt
     draft-ietf-ipsec-esp-00.txt
     draft-ietf-ipsec-esp-des-cbc-03.txt
     draft-ietf-ipsec-auth-00.txt
     draft-ietf-ipsec-ah-md5-02.txt

Regards,


Paul A. Lambert

--------------------------------

        Comments on the March 1995 IPSEC Last Call

The following are comments on the March 1995 last call documents in the IPSEC 
working group:

     draft-ietf-ipsec-arch-00.txt
     draft-ietf-ipsec-esp-00.txt
     draft-ietf-ipsec-esp-des-cbc-03.txt
     draft-ietf-ipsec-auth-00.txt
     draft-ietf-ipsec-ah-md5-02.txt

Notes on Comment Types:

   Major Technical - indicates that the documented flaw MUST be fixed
                     prior to advancing the specification.
   Minor Technical - indicates that the documented flaw SHOULD be fixed
                     prior to advancing the specification.
   Major Editorial - indicates that the editorial recommendations MUST be
                     made prior to advancing the specification
   Minor Editorial - editorial suggestions that SHOULD be incorporated.

--------------------------------------------
Comment Type:  Major Editorial
Location:  all
Comments:  The draft specification have redefined the Security Association 
Identifier (SAID) field to be a "Security Parameter Index" field.  There is 
considerable existing architectural work in others standards activities 
defining the SAID and its usage.  The documents would benefit from an alignment 
with this work.

Recommendation:  Change all occurrences of SPI to SAID.  Use SAID definition 
from IEEE 802.10.
--------------------------------------------
Comment Type:  Major Technical
Location:   draft-ietf-ipsec-esp-00.txt section 3.1

Comments:  The reserved ranges of the SPI/SAID field are defined as:
>     The set of SPI values in the range 0x00000001 though 0x000000FF
>   are reserved to the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) for
>   future use. 
Reserved values have been proposed for several purposes including some for 
multicast mechanisms.  A larger range should be provided for 
reserved/experimental usage.  

Recommendation:  Only the SPI/SAID values between 0x00000100 and 0x07FFFFFF 
should be allowed for pair-wise SAID assignment.  All others (should be 
reserved for now.  Replace text with:


The Security Association Identifier (SAID) field is a 32 bit value identifying 
the security association for the datagram.  The SAID value of 0x00000000 is 
used to indicate that no SAID is available for the source and destination.

          SAID Value                SAID Usage
    ----------------------------------------------------
    0x00000000                  Used to indicate no SAID 
                                assigned to destination.
    0x00000001 to 0x000000FF    Reserved for future use.

    0x00000100 to 0x07FFFFFF    Selected by implementations
                                to identify a unique Security Association.

    0x08000000 to 0xFFFFFFFF    Reserved for future use.

The reserved SAID values are assigned by the Internet Assigned Numbers 
Authority (IANA).  A reserved SAID value will not normally be assigned by IANA 
unless the use of that particular assigned SPI value is openly specified in an 
RFC.
--------------------------------------------
Comment Type:  Major Technical
Location:   draft-ietf-ipsec-esp-00.txt section 3.1
Comments:  The use of the zero SAID is not adequately defined.  More detail on 
it's usage should be provided, or the mechanism should be removed.  When the 
SAID is zero, what does the rest of the packet look like?  What is the 
processing that accompanies this packet.  When is a zero SAID sent (versus a 
ICMP message).

Recommendation:  Define the zero SAID to be experimental for use as a no SA 
indicator.  Add usage text or remove mechanisms after interoperability testing.
--------------------------------------------
Comment Type: Major Technical
Location:  
     draft-ietf-ipsec-arch-00.txt
     draft-ietf-ipsec-esp-00.txt

Comments:  The ESP/IPSP specification do not adequately document the way the 
protocol must examine all traffic passing through the network layer.  This 
"packet filtering" functionality is essential to a "strict" security policy 
that limits non-protected communications.

Recommendation:  Include a description of the filtering functionality in 
ESP/IPSP and/or the architecture document.  A possible figure for this 
description is:


+------+ +-----+ +-----+     +-----+    +------+ +-----+ +-----+     +-----+
|Telnet| | FTP | | TFTP| ... | ... |    |Telnet| | FTP | | TFTP| ... | ... |
+------+ +-----+ +-----+     +-----+    +------+ +-----+ +-----+     +-----+
      |   |         |           |             |   |         |           |   
     +-----+     +-----+     +-----+         +-----+     +-----+     +-----+
     | TCP |     | UDP | ... | ... |         | TCP |     | UDP | ... | ... |
     +-----+     +-----+     +-----+         +-----+     +-----+     +-----+
        |           |           |               |           |           |   
     +--------------------------+----+ - - - -  |  - - - -  |  - - - -  |  +
     |     IP Security Protocol      |         [f]         [f]         [f] |
     +-------------------------------+ - - - -  |  - - - -  |  - - - -  |  +
                    |                           |           |           |   
     +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
     |                           Internet Protocol                         |
     +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
                                        |
       +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
       |                    Local Network Protocol                       |
       +-----------------------------------------------------------------+


--------------------------------------------

Comment Type:  Major Editorial
Location:
     draft-ietf-ipsec-esp-00.txt
     draft-ietf-ipsec-esp-des-cbc-03.txt

Comments:  The splitting of the mandated transforms from the "esp" 
specification makes the documents more difficult to read.  The base protocol 
specification should include the mandated transform(s) and serve as the 
template for future optional transform specifications. 

Recommendation:  Merge transforms documented in "draft-ietf-ipsec-esp-des-cbc-
03.txt" into appendix of "draft-ietf-ipsec-esp-00.txt".
--------------------------------------------
Comment Type:  Major Technical
Location:  
     draft-ietf-ipsec-esp-00.txt
     draft-ietf-ipsec-esp-des-cbc-03.txt
Comments:  The current mandated ipsec-esp security transform only provides 
confidentiality services.  This transform is subject to possible threats based 
on the replay, reflection, or modification of packets.  The "mandatory 
transform" should include integrity services.

Recommendation:  In the merged ESP/IPSP specification include a mandatory 
transformation that provides both confidentiality and integrity services.  

As a suggestion, this transformation should be based on DES-CBC with either a 
ones complement (Fletcher) checksum or use of MD5.
--------------------------------------------
Comment Type:  Major Editorial
Location:  
     draft-ietf-ipsec-esp-00.txt
     draft-ietf-ipsec-esp-des-cbc-03.txt
Comments:  The working group has had the goal of providing a simple 
encapsulation mechanisms that supports various algorithms and security 
services.  The goals had been to document baselines for security transforms to 
support confidentiality, integrity, and confidentiality with integrity.

Recommendation:  In the merged ESP/IPSP specification three transformations 
should be described: DES-CBC, Keyed-MD5 (or other integrity only), and DES-
CBCwith Integrity.  At a minimum, the DES-CBCwith Integrity should be mandated 
as a MUST implement (given the current IETF direction for security in IPv6).
--------------------------------------------
Comment Type:  Major Editorial
Location:  
     draft-ietf-ipsec-arch-00.txt section 6
Comments:  Unnecessary editorial

Recommendation: Remove last three paragraphs.  Replace with:
Protection from traffic analysis is outside the scope of this specification.
--------------------------------------------
Comment Type:  Minor Editorial
Location:  draft-ietf-ipsec-arch-00.txt (section 1.1 par. 1)
Comments:  Should reference ISO 7498/2
Recommendation: add ISO 7498/2 to references
--------------------------------------------