Subject: Re: [lisp] Using Signed object to validate entries in Mapping Database: draft-lisp-rgaglian-ioa-00.txt

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:48:07 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Olivier Bonaventure <[email-masked]>

    > Securing the mapping system is an important problem that hasn't
    > received enough attention on the lisp mailing list.

On this list, no. But the problem of securing the system by signing bindings
has received a fair amount of attention, in particular in the context of
CONS. See, for instance, this message to the RRG mailing list:

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg01077.html

and following messages on that date and following days, starting here:

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/mail142.html

(BTW, does the mailman archive have any sort of index page? I found these by
manually editing the URL in a binary search... not too efficient.)

I'm not sure how much security we need in this trial. I _do_ think (as
earlier messages indicated, peripherally) that we need to make _provision_
for better security down the road (the 'authentication type/authentication
data' fields I mentioned), but beyond that I think we can probably avoid
opening that can of worms for the moment.

	Noel

---

From: Olivier Bonaventure <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:12:56 +0100

Noel,
>   http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/mail142.html

Thanks, I'll check these discussions.

> data' fields I mentioned), 

Having provision for authentication is the minimum, but I think that
security could be part of the experiment.

> but beyond that I think we can probably avoid

If we delay discussions about security problems, I guess that they will
come back later and that we'll have lots of difficulty solving them.

Olivier

-- 
http://inl.info.ucl.ac.be , UCLouvain, Belgium