Re: Security and Cookies -- IETF #59 issue

Maureen,

I am fully with you on this issue and agree with your assessment.

regards,
-Qiaobing

[email protected] wrote:

> A question was raised at IETF #59 about the security of information in the cookies passed between the PE and PU.  My response was that this is not mentioned in the threat document.  We are required to secure the Rserpool infrastructure but not the application. In any case, I said I thought that this probably should be brought up the threat document.
> 
> Cookies are passed via the Rserpool control channel.  In the case of TCP as the transport, the group reached consensus that the data and control channel must always be multiplexed.  Therefore, the cases: 
> a) control channel is secured; data channel is not
> b) data channel is secured; control channel is not
> are not allowed.  It is even hard to understand what this really means from a security point of view.
>   
> The agreement to require multiplexing results in the following cases:
> 1) the multiplexed control channel -data channel is secure OR
> 2) the multiplexed control channel - data channel is not secured
> In my opinion, you get what you pay for and what makes sense.  If you are going to secure both the data and control, then the cookies are secured.  If you are not going to secure the data and control; then the cookies are not secured either.  Seems from this example that we made a good decision.
> 
> Any comments on this issue?  After we debate it I can add the consensus to the threat document if appropriate.
> 
> -- maureen
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rserpool mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rserpool
>