Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] WGLC for draft-ietf-mptcp-attacks

From: Yoshifumi Nishida <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 00:54:47 -0700

Hi, I have read draft-ietf-mptcp-attacks-00.txt.
Please check my comments below. Also, please point out if I miss something.

Technical Comments:

1: As described in Section 7, we have an intention to archive the same
security level as RFC5061.
   However, if we adopt 1) enhancement, the security level will be
lower than this. Hence, I think we cannot recommend this.

   Similarly, if MPTCP MUST work through NATs, I think we cannot
recommend 3) and 4) enhancements.
   From these reasons, I'm wondering if we really need to have 1), 3)
and 4) enhancements in Section 2.1.
   At least, I prefer to have some texts that they are not recommended
in order to be consistent.

2: In 2) enhancement in section 2.1, it seems that HMAC will be
created with the key of the receiver of the ADDR_ADDR message.
   Is there any reason that the key of the sender is not used here? I
think the HMAC in MP_JOIN uses both keys.

3: In 3) enhancement in section 2.1, I might miss something, but I
couldn't see the security benefits to include the destination address
of the message in the HMAC as attackers can get this info.

4: In 4) enhancement in section 2.1, I'm not sure why we want to
utilize MP_JOIN message here.
   I think you might want to put more texts here.

5: In Section 5, 5 possible enhancements include TCPCrypt are simply listed.
   However, in Section 7, it is mentioned that TCPCrypt seems a
promising one. Is there any reason behind this?

Editorial Comments:

1: Section 3, I think we don't need to put '?' in the threat level.
   Also, it seems that "(as it is hard..)" sentence is not necessary
as it is described in the description.

2: Section 3, "This, because" -> This is because

3: Section 4.1, "(like 3)" -> I think you mean "(as described in Section 3.1)"

4: Section 6.1, NATS -> NATs

5: Section 7, SCPT -> SCTP

6: Section 7, "Security enhancements for MPTCP" -> I think this is
subsection title. If so, please provide the section number.

Regards,
--
Yoshi

On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 9:41 PM, Yoshifumi Nishida
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> As mentioned in the London meeting, we start WGLC on draft-ietf-mptcp-attacks.
> The WGLC will run until * April 14th *. The intended status of the
> document is Informational.
>
> Please provide your feedback to the ML before the deadline.
> The draft is available at:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mptcp-attacks-00
>
> Regards,
> --
> Yoshi & Phil

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2014 20:46:13 +0200

thanks for the review. I will address the comeents soon

El 02/04/14 09:54, Yoshifumi Nishida escribió:
> _______________________________________________
> multipathtcp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp
>