Subject: [MBONED] AMT spec

From: Bill Atwood <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 13:59:31 -0400

Greg,

Since our email to mboned (on 2011-03-23) about the security of AMT
evoked no responses, I have read the "Security Considerations" section
of the AMT draft carefully.

We presented two attacks: a Relay Impersonation attack and an attack
where a bogus message appears to come from a gateway, requesting
disconnection.

The description of the Relay Impersonation attack in the draft is
specific to the introduction of bogus routes.  Would it be worthwhile to
note that any method of impersonation (such as MitM) is a potential
attack here?

The bogus message case is well covered in the draft text.

One nit: Page 74, para 1, line 4.  "choose ignore" -> "choose to ignore"

  Bill
-- 

Dr. J.W. Atwood, Eng.             tel:   +1 (514) 848-2424 x3046
Distinguished Professor Emeritus  fax:   +1 (514) 848-2830
Department of Computer Science
   and Software Engineering
Concordia University EV 3.185     email:[email-masked]
1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West    http://users.encs.concordia.ca/~bill
Montreal, Quebec Canada H3G 1M8

---

From: Greg Bumgardner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 13:07:26 -0700

Bill,

Thank you for reviewing the draft. I recall we had a very short 
discussion regarding protocol security at an earlier IETF meeting but 
don't recall the e-mail you mention. I'll take a look in the list archive.

I can add a blurb regarding the protocols susceptibility to a MitM 
attack and post the change to the list.

Again, Thanks,

-g.b.