1 / 12

Security and RMT Protocols: Discussions and Guidelines

<draf-adamson-roca-rmtsec-issues-00.txt> IETF 67 th – San Diego meeting, November 2006 Brian Adamson (NRL), Vincent Roca (INRIA). Security and RMT Protocols: Discussions and Guidelines. Goals of this document. first goal is to state the problem define the general security goals :

sol
Download Presentation

Security and RMT Protocols: Discussions and Guidelines

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. <draf-adamson-roca-rmtsec-issues-00.txt>IETF 67th – San Diego meeting, November 2006 Brian Adamson (NRL), Vincent Roca (INRIA) Security and RMT Protocols: Discussions and Guidelines

  2. Goals of this document • first goal is to state the problem • define the general security goals: • what do we want to protect? network versus protocol versus content • identify the elementary security services: • can be generic (e.g. object/packet integrity), or specific to CDP (e.g. congestion control security) • list the security BBs: • they provide the desired security services • highlight the CDP and use-case specificities that will impact the solution proposed • e.g. there might be no back channel…

  3. general security goals relies on impacts… elementary security services impacts… relies on security BBs Goals of this document… (cont’) • can be depicted as follows: CDP and use-case specificities

  4. Goals of this document… (cont’) • a goal is to detail (all?) threats of current CDP • it’s probably a long list that will remain open… • Question: move list of threats to the CDP docs? • a goal is to help choosing the right solution for a given use case • provide guidelines when feasible

  5. Goals of this document… (cont’) • a goal is to make sure that nothing is missing in current CDP specifications • for instance provide the appropriate Header Extensions • as already done with the EXT_AUTH HE of LCT • Question:something else needed? Probably… • leave the door open for future CDP security extensions…

  6. Non goals of this document • this doc is NOT meant to: • go into the details • we don’t want to make it a 200+ page I-D that (almost) nobody reads • solve all problems • identifying open points is already a first step • use existing BBs, and if something is missing, then do the work in a separate I-D

  7. Problem space • the RMT-sec problem space is huge… • CDP * use-cases * desired security * security BBs • example: • stock market secure and confidential delivery with NORM to a set of 100 known receivers, over a high speed network • FLUTE/ALC content secure delivery with integrity checks to a set of ~100,000s of receivers, unknown to the server and quickly changing, over a unidirectional, lossy DVB-H channel

  8. Problem space… (cont’) • several points of view are possible • e.g. the network provider versus the service provider versus the content provider • will impact the solutions to set up! • consequence: no single answer will fulfill all situations • just like RMT protocols…

  9. Potential pitfalls • try to remain open-minded • content security is typically the responsibility of the content provider… • …but offering some content-related security services can be the responsibility of the transport layer • example: content integrity • can be done within the application by a signed hash of the object  content provider ‘s responsibility • can be done by checking integrity of every packet received for the object  CDP responsibility

  10. Potential pitfalls… (cont’) • do not escape too much from the RMT domain of expertise • e.g. some solutions are typically part of the routing area (reliable and secure forwarding), or application area (e.g. object encryption)

  11. What I-D version 00 contains • we essentially focused on the problem statement • many sections remain to be filled • we didn’t give any thought on many aspects yet

  12. To conclude… • please join and contribute to this document and discussion • George, Gorry, Mark, others… • questions, contributions, comments, etc.

More Related