Subject: Re: draft-fang-ppvpn-security-framework-01.txt

From: "Michael H. Behringer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2003 21:10:28 +0200

At 19:00 30/07/2003, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>[...]

>2. Security Reference Model
>
>    Also outside the scope are all aspects of network security which are
>    independent of whether a network is a PPVPN network or a
>    conventional network (for example, attacks from the Internet to a
>    server of a given PPVPN user will not be considered here, unless the
>    way to provision the PPVPN network could make a difference to the
>    security of this server).
>
>SB> This is the first time you use the term server, and I not sure I
>SB> understand what you mean. Presumably you refer to the equipment
>SB> that interfaces the VPN to the VPN core (and hence Internet). In
>SB> which case it is not just the provisioning mechanism that needs
>SB> to be considered.

No, I mean literally a "server", like a web server for example. What I'm 
trying to say is:
- A server can be attacked from the Internet.
   This is independent of whether this enterprise...
   -- has a private network with an Internet gateway, or
   -- has a PPVPN service.

For attack forms where this statement is NOT true, it's the job of the 
draft to highlight this. Where this IS true it's outside the scope.

I'll change the above sentence, I hope that makes it clearer.

>[...]

>6.4.    CE Authentication
>
>    It is not possible for an outsider to install a CE and pretend to
>    belong to a specific PPVPN, to which this CE does not belong in
>    reality.
>
>SB> I think that you need to restate this, to state that authentication
>SB> makes this impossible (well actually just difficult).

Not clear what you mean. The requirement is "authentication", and if this 
is present, the consequence is that "it is not possible ...". Same 
structure as in all other sections?!?? Please clarify...

>6.5.    Integrity
>
>    Data in transit must be cryptographically secured such that it
>    cannot be altered.
>
>6.6.    Anti-Replay
>
>    Data in transit must be cryptographically secured such that it
>    cannot be recorded and replayed later.
>
>SB> You may wish to expand the last two sections a little so that the
>SB> title is not integral to reading the sentence.

Hmmm, I like it short and crisp ;-)  But I'll reword it :-)

Thanks for your comments!
Michael

[rest deleted here]