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

Re: compare-jfk-sigma.txt

To: Charlie_Kaufman@iris.com
Subject: Re: compare-jfk-sigma.txt
From: "Angelos D. Keromytis" <angelos@cs.columbia.edu>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 17:04:46 -0500
Cc: Ran Canetti <canetti@watson.ibm.com>, ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 06 Dec 2001 23:30:37 EST." <OFD54EE6B3.71026D64-ON85256B1B.00120DA4-@85256B1B.0018C53CLocalDomain>
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com


In message <OFD54EE6B3.71026D64-ON85256B1B.00120DA4-@85256B1B.0018C53CLocalDoma
in>, Charlie_Kaufman@iris.com writes:
>
>The one remaining difference is the choice of bits being signed. The
>protocol
>above signs selected fields from the messages, while IKEv2 proposes
>signing the entirety of messages 1 and 2 as they appear on the wire. (and
>the entirety of all future messages are integrity protected, so all fields
>in all messages are integrity protected.) The advantage of the
>IKEv2 approach is that it captures all relevant fields in the messages
>including
>any extensions like vendor IDs. It's also easier to specify, since the SIG
>above will have to specify exactly how the bits are encoded for signing
>(TLV vs raw; payloads with or without headers, etc).

Doing so for messages 1 and 2 would require keeping state at the responder
on receipt of message 1.
-Angelos

Follow-Ups:

Re: compare-jfk-sigma.txt

From: Hugo Krawczyk <hugo@ee.technion.ac.il>

References:

Re: compare-jfk-sigma.txt

From: Charlie_Kaufman@iris.com

Prev by Date: Re: compare-jfk-sigma.txt
Next by Date: IKEv2 and NAT traversal
Prev by thread: Re: compare-jfk-sigma.txt
Next by thread: Re: compare-jfk-sigma.txt
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread