Re: security recommendations in MIDCOM MIB draft
Melinda Shore <[email protected]> Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:40:15 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.midcom |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <C2BBC39F.25684%[email protected]> |
On 7/12/07 7:51 AM, "Magnus Westerlund" <[email protected]> wrote: > Can we please come to consensus on this topic. And if there are text > changes to implement the consensus, please provide them as RFC-editor > notes to me. The starting point is: requesting services from a middlebox must be secure. If that's to be done cryptographically, it requires SNMPv3. If it's not to be done cryptographically it suggests that the protocol is being run over a "secure" network. The latter was not considered acceptable by the responsible area director at the time that the work was ramping up, and it seems to me the question of whether or not SNMPv3 is to be required hinges on whether or not we can now permit an assumption of a "secure" network (for example, running it over an IPSec tunnel). It seems to me that if we can't assume the use of a secure network in some deployments then SNMPv3 has to be required, since sending firewall requests and NAT answers insecurely is obviously unacceptable. Do you think the assumption of a secure network would pass review? Melinda