Hi,
Documents containing MIB modules must include a discussion of the
sensitivity of the tables/objects in the MIB module. This includes the
possible impact to the managed technologies that could be caused by an
unauthorized or misguided change to a configuration, for example.
Certainly the potential impact of using MIB objects to change the
relative priority of a managed technology's sessions would need to be
included in the read-write security considerations of the MIB module.
See https://svn.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/mib-security
Using AVPs in Diameter to affect a similar change to the relative
priority of a managed technology's sessions warrants a similar
consideration of the sensitivity of the specific AVPs.
David Harrington
Director, IETF Transport Area
Member of SECDIR, OPSDIR, and MIB Doctors directorates
ietfdbh(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net (preferred for ietf)
dbharrington(_at_)huaweisymantec(_dot_)com
+1 603 828 1401 (cell)
-----Original Message-----
From: secdir-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:secdir-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
carlberg(_at_)g11(_dot_)org(_dot_)uk
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 7:24 AM
To: Stephen Hanna
Cc: lionel(_dot_)morand(_at_)orange-ftgroup(_dot_)com;
draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps(_dot_)all(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org;
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; secdir(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of
draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-04
Steve,
Quoting Stephen Hanna <shanna(_at_)juniper(_dot_)net>:
Thanks for your response, Ken.
Removing the last sentence that you quoted would make things
worse.
Readers of this draft should definitely familiarize themselves
with
the security considerations related to priority. We should make
that
easier, not harder. The fact that those considerations also apply
to
other RFCs does not remove the fact that they apply to this
one also.
but those considerations do not directly apply to DIAMETER.
You cannot publish a document whose security considerations
section
says (as this one effectively does today), "There are lots
of security
considerations related to this document. To understand them,
please
dig through all the referenced documents and figure it out
yourself."
Doing that digging and analysis is the job of the document
editors.
agreed, speaking in the general sense. But again, the security
considerations of these other protocols do not apply to the
operation
of Diameter.
In order to ease the burden on you, I think a reasonable
compromise
would be for YOU to review the documents referenced and decide
which
have the most relevant security considerations. Then you could
list
those explicitly in the last paragraph of the Security
Considerations.
I'm concerned about the implications of your recommendation. If we
extend this position to other work in the IETF, then efforts like
defining MIBs would mean that each MIB draft would need to perform a
security considerations analysis of each protocol that an objects
refers to in the context of SNMP. And one can extend the argument
that each protocol operating on top of TCP (and/or UDP) and IP would
need to perform an analysis on how TCP/UDP and IP may affect
the upper
layer protocol. We don't do that today.
cheers,
-ken
_______________________________________________
secdir mailing list
secdir(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf