Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Comments on CCM draft -00

From: Mike Eisler <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 14:31:02 -0700 (PDT)

> From [email-masked] Wed May  7 12:52:17 2003
> >>>>> "Mike" == Mike Eisler <[email-masked]> writes:

>     Mike> Thanks for the quick feedback.  I plan on presenting this
>     Mike> stuff at the Ann Arbor wg meeting in June.

>     Mike> Nicolas Williams wrote:

>     >> 1) CCM is dangerous without mandating the use of channel
>     >> bindings.

>     Mike> Agreed, and I hope the Security Considerations captures the
>     Mike> danger.  But if sometingis dangerous, it doesn't follow that
>     Mike> it shouldn't be done.

> I'm failing to see a strong justification for ever using CCM without
> channel bindings and am concerned that unless they are mandated that

Because the APIs to get these bindings don't exist. Not every
implementor on this list has control over their operating environment's
IPsec implementation. And not all IPsec implementations live in the host.
Some live in offload engines. The point of CCM is to leverage fast
crypto, and I think fast crypto is going to be found in devices that
offload IPsec and TLS.

Telling those among us who can't change the IP stack "tough luck"
is going to beg the rebuttal "how can iSCSI get by without channel bindings?"
(which as far as I can tell, aren't even optional ... at least the current
i-d for CCM acknowledges their possibility). 

> vendors will take the quick route to implementation and not implement
> them.

> Unless there is something I'm missing on this issue, I don't think I
> could go along with a CCM draft that did not mandate implementing
> channel bindings.

I don't believe you protested the iSCSI security model, so you've gone along
with it, even if it was because you weren't paying attention. What's
the difference between NFS and iSCSI? One has variable length blocks
and a namespace hierarchy and the other doesn't.
_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 14:38:59 -0700

> crypto, and I think fast crypto is going to be found in devices that

APIs can be added and CCM can give the impetus for that.

> i-d for CCM acknowledges their possibility). 

My apologies, I did not mean "tough, you don't get to do CCM" but
"tough, you get to push the OS vendor to add the API."

As for iSCSI, I don't think it has any relevance to this discussion.

> and a namespace hierarchy and the other doesn't.

I don't know about Sam, but I did not protest iSCSI's model because I
had no interest in iSCSI at the time and so spared no cycles to
commenting on it.  I don't see how having failed to comment on iSCSI's
binding to IPsec in the past binds me (or, for that matter, Sam or
anyone else) to not comment on RPCSEC_GSS's binding to IPsec [through
CCM].

Cheers,

Nico
--