Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-dime-erp-14

From: Glen Zorn <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 15:07:46 +0700

On 11/05/2012 04:55 AM, Vincent Roca wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
> ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
> IESG.  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
> security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat
> these comments just like any other last call comments.

Thank you for taking the time to review the draft.

>
> --
>
> The security section of this document is pretty simple as it refers to
> the security section of 4 related documents and that's all. On the
> opposite, each of these 4 documents includes a very detailed security
> analysis.  The contrast is extremely important!

Why?

>
> This is all the more annoying as draft-ietf-dime-erp-14 introduces new
> mechanisms, and thereby new potential threats and issues (it's usually
> the case).

 From a Diameter POV, a Diameter ERP "server" is actually just a form of 
Diameter agent and the Diameter ERP client is just a standard Diameter 
client; a new application is only required to ensure the correct routing 
of Diameter messages.  So I'm not sure what the new mechanisms you refer 
to are; perhaps you can elucidate?

>
> What should I understand? Is the proposal guaranteed to be secure?

There are no guarantees in life, let alone security ;-).

> Or have all the potential weaknesses been already addressed in the
> 4 related documents?

It would seem that that is the very strong implication.

> I can not conclude after reading this security section
> and this is a problem.

It seems as if the big problem is that the draft doesn't tell you what 
to think about the security properties of the protocol but I don't think 
that is really a problem with the document.  As I mentioned above, it 
appears to me that the authors believe that security-related issues are 
dealt with in the Security Considerations sections of RFCs 4072, 6696, 
6733 and 6734.  Is that the case?  If not, please point out a security 
problem with this protocol that is not covered by those texts.

>
> So, I'd like that the authors clarify this, and if need be, I'd like 
> the authors
> explicitly mention which items in each of the 4 related documents apply.
> It would be helpful IMHO.

Only if you believe our conclusions ;-).

>
>
> Cheers,
>
>    Vincent
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> secdir mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir
> wiki: http://tools.ietf.org/area/sec/trac/wiki/SecDirReview