RE: [issue30] How to handle bad MN's authorization Toke n?

Hi Rajeev,

No that was not my original concern (although that is a valid concern)
the concern was somebody spoofing nAR, and hence the need for 
message authentication between pAR and nAR. 
Originally we didn't go as far as requiring message authentication
for all messages between pAR and nAR (and yes the routers should have
SAs, as the requirement stated, in case context delivery needs to be secure),
but that was when we didn't have authentication token by the users.
If you want the pAR to do something for every failed authentication 
token, then you are setting yourself for trouble (DoS attacks), especially
since CT has to happen so quickly. Does the nAR has to keep any state?

Madjid

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Rajeev Koodli
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 6:02 PM
To: Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1
Cc: Seamoby CTP Issues; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Seamoby] [issue30] How to handle bad MN's authorization
Token?



Hi,

is your concern message tampering between pAR and nAR ?
If so, that should apply to all contexts. I think we address that
by saying the routers SHOULD have SAs.

Regards,

-Rajeev


Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1 wrote:

> Rajeev,
>
> I don't recall whether there was a message authentication procedure between
> the pAR and nAR, if there is none, and the pAR can't verify the authorization
> token, then we may open the door to DoS attacks on the pAR. So responding to
> nAR may have bad consequences...
> If there is no message authentication between nAR and pAR, while you are expecting
> the MN to authenticate itself to pAR (to me this is half way solution), then the
> pAR should ignore the request.
>
> Madjid
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
> Rajeev Koodli
> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 1:14 PM
> To: Seamoby CTP Issues
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Seamoby] [issue30] How to handle bad MN's authorization
> Token?
>
> John Loughney SEAMOBY-Issues wrote:
>
> > New submission from John Loughney <[email protected]>:
> >
> > In case nAR requests the transfer by a CTR message, the pAR must verify
> > the MN's authorization token. If this token is unvalid, what do we do ?
> >
> > Possible solutions:
> >
> >  - nothing ? the pAR does not answer to nAR.
> >  - pAR indicates the error to nAR:
> >         * In the CTD message.
> >         * In a error message which could carry error information.
> >
>
> pAR MUST respond to nAR with an appropriate error.
> nAR SHOULD convey the result to the MN.
>
> -Rajeev
>
> >
> > others ?
> >
> > ----------
> > category: Editorial
> > document: draft-ietf-seamoby-ctp-05.txt
> > messages: 39
> > nosy: jloughney
> > priority: Should Fix
> > status: No Discussion
> > title: How to handle bad MN's authorization Token?
> > _____________________________________________________________
> > Seamoby CTP Issues <[email protected]>
> > <http://danforsberg.info:8080/draft-ietf-seamoby-ctp/issue30>
> > _____________________________________________________________
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Seamoby mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby
>
> _______________________________________________
> Seamoby mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby