Subject: Re: [mobile-ip] Hesham's note about security and Piggybacking - DT recommendation]

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 17:29:49 +0100

If we (still) disagree about merits of piggy-packing, we 100% agree
about the security stuff (cf. draft-dupont-ipsec-mipv6-00.txt
and the answer to Hesham's note).

Some details:
 - there is no standardized way to say a node is a MN so
   it is authorized to send BUs but:
   * the "road warrior" case in VPNs is already supported by
     all IPsec based VPN implementations, something similar
     can be specified.
   * the "home address" identity can be considered as an implicit
     authorization too (note: this implies a modification of X.509
     certificate format?)
 - the authenticated and authorized BU to a fake CoA threat is not
   serious: the traffic from the CN to the target (the real user of
   the CoA) will contain a RH type 2 with the HoA (i.e. the real attacker)
   in each packet or fragment. If this is not enough for someone
   he should have shouted against the "new proposal for HAO".

So I still argue IPsec without RR MAY protect BUs if the protection
covers enough fields (i.e. with ESP an alternate CoA is required, etc),
and the protection includes authentication (should be always the case)
and the MN is authorized to send BUs.

Regards

[email-masked]