The Network Endpoint Assessment (NEA) Asokan Attack Analysis
draft-ietf-nea-asokan-02
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-11-01
|
02 | Tero Kivinen | Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response' |
2012-10-22
|
02 | Amy Vezza | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2012-10-19
|
02 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC |
2012-10-19
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2012-10-19
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2012-10-19
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2012-10-19
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2012-10-19
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-10-19
|
02 | Steve Hanna | New version available: draft-ietf-nea-asokan-02.txt |
2012-09-27
|
01 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2012-09-27
|
01 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo |
2012-09-26
|
01 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Wesley Eddy |
2012-09-26
|
01 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ralph Droms |
2012-09-26
|
01 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] The third sentence of the Introduction is an apparent non sequitur. It would be nice if some context was given to the statement. … [Ballot comment] The third sentence of the Introduction is an apparent non sequitur. It would be nice if some context was given to the statement. --- Section 5 1. Protocols should make use of cryptographic binding, however binding identities of the tunnel endpoints in the EMA may be useful. This is hard to parse. Is there an "also" missing from the second clause? |
2012-09-26
|
01 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2012-09-26
|
01 | Stephen Farrell | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2012-09-26
|
01 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2012-09-25
|
01 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ronald Bonica |
2012-09-25
|
01 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
2012-09-25
|
01 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot comment] I have one point requiring clarification: Section 2, paragraph 1: > The NEA Asokan Attack is a variation on an attack described … [Ballot comment] I have one point requiring clarification: Section 2, paragraph 1: > The NEA Asokan Attack is a variation on an attack described in a > 2002 paper written by Asokan, Niemi, and Nyberg [1]. Figure 1 > depicts one version of the original Asokan attack. This attack > involves tricking an authorized user into authenticating to a decoy > AAA server, which forwards the authentication protocol from one > tunnel to another, tricking a AAA server into believing these > messages came from the attacker and granting access to him. Shouldn't it read that the 'believe that messages came from the user, but granting access to the attacker'? |
2012-09-25
|
01 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2012-09-25
|
01 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot comment] I had no idea what a Network Endpoint Assessment was, until I stumbled on the reference to RFC5209. It would be a … [Ballot comment] I had no idea what a Network Endpoint Assessment was, until I stumbled on the reference to RFC5209. It would be a good idea to move the reference up to the first line of the Introduction. I kept meeting PT, but has no idea what that was until I found it in RFC5209. A sentence earlier in the text would be useful. |
2012-09-25
|
01 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
2012-09-24
|
01 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2012-09-24
|
01 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2012-09-24
|
01 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2012-09-24
|
01 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Sparks |
2012-09-23
|
01 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley |
2012-09-21
|
01 | Stephen Farrell | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2012-09-27 |
2012-09-21
|
01 | Stephen Farrell | Ballot has been issued |
2012-09-21
|
01 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2012-09-21
|
01 | Stephen Farrell | Created "Approve" ballot |
2012-09-21
|
01 | Stephen Farrell | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-09-19
|
01 | Pearl Liang | IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-nea-asokan-01, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there … IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-nea-asokan-01, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are no IANA Actions that need completion. |
2012-09-14
|
01 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Kathleen Moriarty |
2012-09-14
|
01 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Kathleen Moriarty |
2012-09-14
|
01 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Ondřej Surý |
2012-09-14
|
01 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Ondřej Surý |
2012-09-12
|
01 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: (NEA Asokan Attack Analysis) to Informational … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: (NEA Asokan Attack Analysis) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from the Network Endpoint Assessment WG (nea) to consider the following document: - 'NEA Asokan Attack Analysis' as Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-09-26. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract The Network Endpoint Assessment protocols are subject to a subtle forwarding attack that has become known as the NEA Asokan Attack. This document describes the attack and countermeasures that may be mounted. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nea-asokan/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nea-asokan/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2012-09-12
|
01 | Amy Vezza | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2012-09-12
|
01 | Stephen Farrell | Last call was requested |
2012-09-12
|
01 | Stephen Farrell | Ballot approval text was generated |
2012-09-12
|
01 | Stephen Farrell | Ballot writeup was generated |
2012-09-12
|
01 | Stephen Farrell | State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2012-09-12
|
01 | Stephen Farrell | Last call announcement was generated |
2012-09-12
|
01 | Stephen Farrell | State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2012-09-10
|
01 | Cindy Morgan | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? … (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Informational is requested and indicated in the title page header. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: The Network Endpoint Assessment protocols are subject to a subtle forwarding attack that has become known as the NEA Asokan Attack. This document describes the attack and countermeasures that may be mounted. Working Group Summary: The WG formed a design team in July 2010 with the goal of recommending a general-purpose counter-measure that would work for both of the PT protocols under specification in the WG. The design team analysis and recommendation is the subject of this document. The recommendation of the design team was presented to the WG at the IETF meeting in November 2010 where it received solid support. The result was confirmed on the mailing list in January 2011, and the recommended counter- measure subsequently incorporated into the two PT protocols specified in the NEA WG. The two PT protocols, PT-TLS and PT- EAP, are separately specified in two standards-track documents, and reference this document as an Informative reference. Document Quality: This document does not specify a protocol. Rather, it describes counter-measures that PT-TLS and PT-EAP can use to mitigate against the NEA Asokan attack. The PT-TLS and PT-EAP specifications describe how these counter-measures should be used in these particular protocols. As described above, this document is the result of active participation from several WG members and received substantive review from the WG. Personnel: Susan Thomson is the Document Shepherd. Stephen Farrell is the Responsible Area Director. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. I have reviewed the document and do not have issues with it. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No broader review is known to be needed. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No concerns. The attack and the need for a counter-measure was thoroughly vetted within the NEA WG. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? Yes. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There is strong consensus from the WG. The attack itself was reviewed within the WG at multiple IETF meetings, and the recommendation for a counter-measure made by the design team received strong consensus and has been incorporated into the relevant PT specifications. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet- Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. None. Idnits tool flags no issues. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. Not Applicable. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. All references are informative. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No. There are no normative references. (15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). Not applicable. The document specifies no actions for IANA. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. Not applicable. The document specifies no actions for IANA. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. Not applicable. None of the document is written in a formal language. |
2012-09-10
|
01 | Cindy Morgan | Note added 'Susan Thomson (sethomso@cisco.com) is the Document Shepherd.' |
2012-09-10
|
01 | Cindy Morgan | Intended Status changed to Informational |
2012-09-10
|
01 | Cindy Morgan | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2012-09-10
|
01 | (System) | Earlier history may be found in the Comment Log for draft-salowey-nea-asokan |
2012-08-22
|
01 | Joseph Salowey | New version available: draft-ietf-nea-asokan-01.txt |
2012-04-26
|
00 | Steve Hanna | New version available: draft-ietf-nea-asokan-00.txt |