Subject: RE: [Capwap] Change Request 9.1.2 (Control Channel Security)

From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 15:02:14 -0700

I am simply raising the point that it would be in the clear, with the
understanding that the group should look at this deeper. However, this
was not raised as an issue during the security evaluation of the
protocol, and therefore I do not believe we have an issue.

Pat Calhoun
CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit
Cisco Systems

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of James Kempf
> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 2:53 PM
> To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Capwap] Change Request 9.1.2 (Control Channel Security)
> 
> 2. Post-Discovery DTLS. In this mode, the above limitations 
> are removed, and the Discovery phase is done in the clear. 
> While it is true that this raises some security concerns, the 
> information in the Discovery Response is relatively benign, 
> and therefore any malicious tweaking (or altering) of the 
> response packet has created limited damage (although the WG 
> needs to evaluate this, but it was not found to be 
> problematic during the security review).
> 
> 
> jak>> What was the security concern with doing discovery in the clear?
> 
>             jak
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Capwap mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap
> 
_______________________________________________
Capwap mailing list
[email-masked]
http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap