[LinkSec] notes from Plenary March 10-12
Here are the notes from the plenary - they'll be put up on the web site
soon, but meanwhile, I thought I'd send them out- there is a summary up front.
Allyn
==============
ECSG LinkSec Notes
Plenary 3/10-3/12/03
chair Dolors Sala, dolorsieee.org
notes Allyn Romanow, allyn@cisco.com
Summary: SG charter was slightly wordsmithed but basically unchanged
going forward. Three technical efforts to produce drafts underway -
contact the following people to contribute:
Marcus Leech, mleech@nortelnetworks.com - requirements
Renee Struik, rstruik@certicom.com - threat models
Bob Moskowitz, rgm@trusecure.com - architecture
---------------------
3/10 am
Robert Love RPR Reslient Packet Ring, 802.17. Presentations on RPR
because security may fall within LinkSec
Which frames need to be protected? data, maybe control
Followup - does LinkSec have any requirements for RPR? e.g.,
a hook in MAC, any particular functionality from the MAC? - if so, they need
this from us right away
need from .17 - supply a couple of people to work with LinkSec
Presentation from Rene Struik Distributed Security Proposal for IEEE
Link Security
from 802.15
Discussion was brief and along the lines that much ground was covered
which would require much time to discuss.
---------------------------
3/10 pm 3:30
No weekly call next week
Review of rules and patent policy
Approval of Minutes from Jan meeting
Minutes will be general, let Allyn know if you want something specific
in the minutes
Jan meeting summary - agreed on work plan
Events between plenaries
Placement of Group
SEC email ballot for placement of SG
motion failed to become a SG of 802.1 - wanted to discuss
during the SEC meeting, some people wanted to put SG in 802.10
This am in SEC, motion in place again, WGs to evaluate the
recommendation, tabled, all WGs have as an item to discuss, to
recommend to SEC on Friday
Objectives during this plenary meeting -
Agree on initial set of scenarios
agree on initial set of objectives
discuss threats, architecture
PAR discussion - one or more, scope and purpose, schedule
Set goals for next meeting
Presentations
Mats Naslund - on Security issues in public access LANs. There is no
security on the wired part of the network and there needs to be for
billing purposes.
Dolors - link security scenarios
-EPON - OLT and ONU without other ONUs knowing about it
-extension to other MACs
-secure bridge - multi-hop at L2
3/11 afternoon
Meeting with EPON group
Want to agree on threats and requirments from EPON
Marcus Leech, Nortel Presentation on Physics of Upstream EPON
Physics of the optics allows eavesdropping
Discussion of upstream encryption -
Two positions were articulated -
One is that whether upstream encryption is needed depends on the
threat model and the cost. In this view, it is necessary to specify
the threat models for FTTH and FTTB and then to see how crucial
upstream security is.
The second view is that it doesn't matter what the specific
threat model is because the cost of incrementally including upstream
encryption along with downstream encryption is so low as to be negligible.
Antti - Presentation, EPON Security, same as previous presentation,
but with FTTBusiness added.
FTTH and FTTB should be treated differently because man-in-the-middle
attack doesn't apply to FTTH. We should develop a separate threat model for
each application and see whether upstream encrytion is needed.
Several people disagreed and felt that upstream encryption was
warranted, especially as the cost isn't great.
3/12 morning
Suggestion that implications of nested security should be on the
agenda at some point
Presentation by Mani on Enterprise Security
Focus on security at two locations - with the nodes and path security
between systems
Clarification by Marcus concerning lawful intercept - enterprise does
not have legal obligation but public service providers do
Mani favors
-centralized policy server for access control
-distributed authentication model
-enhanced 802.10 SDE- support for VLAN, QoS tags, replay protection service
What's the scope? It really depends on who shows up to the LinkSec
meetings and what they are interested in working on. So far .3 has
participated.
Dolors- High Level Business level requirements
-theft of service
-separate cusomers
-billing records
-consistency between media (smooth transition, unified security across
media, ability to securely bridge across media, ability to handoff
security associations)
-specify a complete solution
Comment- What about mobility?
Discussion of what is meant by mobility, what linksec needs to
consider. Handoff, fast handoff?
Relationship with .11, needs to be made clear ongoing.
Marcus Leech will lead effort on requirements. Volunteers called for
Dolors - Objectives
Select and/or specifiy:
1 unified security arch - Bob M. is planning on a presentation.
work with Bob M. or present an alternative arch model
2 bridge-transparent SDE
3 authentication protocol
4 key management protocol
5 link security mechanism for 802.3 if additonal MAC functionality
needed
6 Discovery protocol
Theoretically, what we are doing here is above MAC layer and should
work with all 802 MACs
Will show these slides at the SEC meeting
Discussion on how to renew the SG Charter
Dolors proposed an updated charter
Discussion of whether to start from the original SG charter, or the
proposed new one.
Poll on which charter to start working with
who wants to start with the current charter? 20
who wants to start with the new charter? 6-7
Ken Alonge-proposal to revisit decision of placement of the SG
Tony- SEC procedural issues to take vote on Friday night, rather than issue
with placement
the decision of where SG has already been made, no reason to revist
There were no additional comments on placement of the SG
Minor changes in current charter.
Change wording from 802.3 in particular, to early emphasis on 802.3
poll
make change - 13
don't make change - 6
abstain - 9
See Dolors slides for text of the SG charter
poll-
who thinks this is a good charter for the SG?
32
who thinks this is not a good charter?
0
Abstain
4
Is there enough publicity for other groups to participate in LinkSec?
EPON not here cause doing comment resolution
recommendation - talk with other group chairs to see if they want
Dolors to give a brief report on linksec at the closing plenary of the
other meetings
planning for future meetings
June 2-6 Ottawa
Jonathan Thatcher will do a presentation on .3 implementation constraints
Threats - how strong or weak are intruders?
how should we consider threat model?
Marcus - doing a threat model based on what a particular kind of
attacker can accomplish and then looking for an encryption technology
strong enough only for this is foolish
We need to assume a moderately well-funded corporate attacker
relatively cheap technology exists for this level of attack
Two relevant observations-
Eavesdropping is possible
Arbitrary traffic injection is possible
What are security implications for each MAC?
for some kinds of traffic security doesn't matter, for others it does
matter
Renee will lead effort on threat models
Mani will help
solicit volunteers
Bob Moskowitz is leading the architecture effort
solicit volunteers
There will be a note out on the mailing list soliciting volunteers for
each effort.