RE: [802.21] Mutual authentication requirements in SSG
Michael:
MIH is delivered by either L3 or L2. If it is delivered by L3, then the
protections will be applied at L3 or higher. Then L2 would not need
to know what is delivered. Whatever specified at L2 will not be related
to MIH.
For example, you are doing home banking from your laptop at home through
a wireless connection. You log in to your bank account, establish a SSL
(or TLS) link. This is end-to-end between the bank application in
your laptop and the bank server. You have to do so since you need
to know that you are on a right server. This connection is
established for your banking activity. Now your wireless link
between the laptop and wireless harbor may also be protected at link
layer whenever you make your connection. This link is not specific for
your banking activity and even do not care what you are doing. It process
each frame in the same way.
For MIH, there is one procedure to bind 1, 2, and 3 for MIH purpose and
from MIHF to MIHF. The others have nothing to do with MIH.
Regards,
Lily
At 09:19 PM 2/7/2008, Michael.G.Williams@nokia.com wrote:
Hi Lily, Maryna,
Peretz,Yoshi,
Thank you for
the responses, helping us to make progress here.
Maryna,
Peretz, regarding the use of MIIS in unauthenticated state... that use
case is supported for NWDS acceleration by .16 and .11. We have assumed
that the use of the MIIS at L2 would mean that the PoA would not trust
the MN even if the MN is currently associated to the PoA's network
through a different PoA. Could it be possible for the MN to already trust
the new PoA however, if it is in the same network as the current PoA?
What would it take to make that a possibility? Of course the mobile node
may use the information as a hint even if there is no authentication (as
is done today with the beacon)
For this use
case, one of the main concerns expressed in .11 was that of DoS attack
from the MN. Were there similar concerns from .16?
Lily,
regarding use of MIH when the MN is authenticated to the network, you
mentioned that for most correct usage, the four aspects of 1,2,3 plus
replay protection must be mandatory to use, regardless of the transport
level use of those four aspects. As a result, we may have L2 use of these
four protections, then L3 use of them (e.g. ipsec), then the MSTP layer,
and then the MIH layer, is that what we are suggesting?
BR,
Michael
From: ext Lily Chen
[
mailto:llchen@NIST.GOV]
Sent: 07 February, 2008 11:26
To: STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802.21] Mutual authentication requirements in
SSG
We have a few relative security aspects:
1. Mutual authentication (entity authentication).
2. Key establishment for message protection.
3. Message protections (encryption and integrity protection).
If we want to make sure that MN receives information from a correct
source, then we have to bind 1-2-3 together so that the message is
authenticated by the entity which have authenticated in 1. Entity
authentication does not imply message authentication (integrity
protection). That is, we cannot depend on transport protection,
since the transport layer ID for the service unit may not be the same as
the MIH ID. The transport layer mutual authentication may not mean
MIH mutual authentication. Furthermore, the protection may be applied
hop-by-hop instead of end-to-end. The information receiver may not be
able to get any assurance on where the information comes from.
There are some options if MN can access a PKI which is media
independent and if the protection is applied at MIH protocol, then the
information can be authenticated by digital signatures, verifiable by MN
without step 1 and step 2 we listed in the above. In this case, other
cautions must be taken, for example, to prevent re-play attacks.
However, these are just IFs. We need discuss how applicable these IFs
are.
Regards,
Lily
At 04:23 AM 2/5/2008, komarova wrote:
Hi all,
MN to IS authentication may be optional, but IS to MN authentication
should be mandatory in order to provide guarantee that the MN receives
information from a correct source.
Best regards,
Maryna Komarova
Yoshihiro Ohba a écrit :
Hi Perets,
This topic is important for SSG TR.
On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 01:54:07AM -0600, Feder, Peretz (Peretz)
wrote:
Michael: We actually were planning to use IS in 802.16 before the
802.16
full authentication, if now required we may loose the
pre-authentication
network entry flexibility.
This leads to an issue on whether the security feature to be
defined
by a new project (if approved) should be mandatory to use or option
to
use. We may need to define it as option to use at least for
IS,
considering the 802.16 usage mentioned above as well as GAS usage
in
802.11u. We may need to investigate the same issue for ES and
CS as
well.
Regards,
Yoshihiro Ohba
________________________________
From: Michael G Williams [
mailto:Michael.G.Williams@NOKIA.COM] Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008
8:15 PM
To: STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [802.21] Mutual authentication requirements in SSG
Hi,
In the security study group, we discussed the need for MIHF
level
authentication.
There were a few topics in this area:
What do people see as serving as the basis for credentials for the
MIHF?
Is it possible to reuse the network access authentication or
MSTP
transport authentication for the MIHF level?
Is mutual authentication always required, or is one way sufficient
for
some applications?
Is the need for authentication different between the four
different
services (management, ES, IS, CE)?
Comments? Proposed solutions?
Best Regards, Michael