Subject: Re: [mobile-ip] -New ID about Address owernship-

From: "Claude Castelluccia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 10:11:19 +0200

Hello Mohan,

-----Message d'origine-----
>
>   Notice that the exchange at step 2 must be secure in order to
>   avoid intruder-in-the-middle attacks, but it is an improvement
>   over cookies.
>
>Could you explain how you are communicating the public key securely
>in your protocol ? I have not read all the details of HIP, so
>i could be missing something.

In the context of MIPV6 you don't need to send the public key securely.
The home address is binded to the MN's public key and the msg2 (that
included the
BU) is signed by the MN's private key...

An intruder-in-the-middle could intercepts msg2 and send a fake one to the
CN. But this "fake" BU can
not use the MN's home address because the intruder won't be able to sign it
(because it does not
know the private key)....so it won't be able to redirect the trafic destined
to the MN.... the only think it could
do is to send a BU with a fake home address ....this won't be very
harmfull...

did I answer your question?

regards,

Claude.