[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Comments on ISAKMP and Oakley resolution document.
1. Is the value SAp in HASH_I the SA payload as sent by the initiator and SAp in HASH_R the
SA payload sent by the responder? It seems like many people have implemented there ISAKMP/Oakley
with above interpretation. However, SAp defined in section 3.2 clearly states that it is SA payload
sent by the initiator.
Could someone please clarify this?
2. Examples of phase 1 (e.g., section 5.8.1) shows SPI to be 8 bytes. Since SPI has no
interpretation (that I know of) in phase 1, SPI size should be set to 0 and SPI field should not
exist. Many implementations ignore non-zero SPI's. However, there is no reason to show something
in the example that is not required.
3. In section 5.4
HASH(1) is the prf over the message id (M-ID) from the ISAKMP
header concatenated with the entire message that follows the hash
including all payload headers, but excluding any padding added for
encryption.
Gives an impression that somehow header (not just MID should be included in the HASH(1).
Also, it gives an impression that if you took MID, and rest of the payload (excluding padding)
and computed hash you will be all set. After reading this, any optional payloads were transmitted
with the message, they will also be included in the hash computation.
At the same time, HASH(1) is defined as
HASH(1) = prf(SKEYID_a, M-ID | SA | Ni [ | KE ] [ | IDui | IDur ])
Which clearly says that different payloads of ISAKMP/Oakley must be hashed in a
particular order (not necessarily the order of transmission of these payloads). One of the two
definitions need to be changes. This definition excludes anything except what is specified.
One of the two need to be fixed. Same comments hold for HASH(2) description.
Baiju
Follow-Ups: