Subject: [eap] Security Properties Analysis of EAP-IKEv2

From: Salekul Islam <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 15:38:01 +0000

Hi All,I like to know about the formal analysis of EAP-IKEv2. In the Security Considerations section of draft-tschofenig-eap-ikev2, some specific security terminologies required by RFC 3748 are described. I have found an AVISPA model, which is three years old. Is there any other model or formal analysis approach of EAP-IKEv2? Can we assume this AVISPA model a good interpretation of the EAP-IKEv2 to validate most of the security properties?I am more interested in the pass-through mode of EAP-IKEv2. I am aware of the vulnerabilities of the AAA key transport (e.g., MITM attack), but I am focusing the EAP method only. More specifically, if we follow the EAP Key Management Framework draft, I am concerned about the security properties analysis of phase 1a (see section 1.3 of draft-ietf-eap-keying) of EAP-IKEv2.I have a general question to ask. I have noticed that most (not all) of the EAP methods are not modeled and analyzed formally using a tool. All of them have Security Considerations section where their security properties are described in terms of RFC 3748. Is this the standard (and only) way of dealing with security of these methods? Or the WG has some future plan to deal this more concretely?Thanks and regards,Salekul 
_________________________________________________________________
Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d

_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/eap

Arhives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/eap

---

From: "Tschofenig, Hannes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 20:37:08 +0100

Hi Salekul, 
 
the formal analysis of EAP-IKEv2 and other EAP methods was done as part
of an EU funded project. I gave an overview presentation of the AVISPA
project at IETF#59 (see http://www.tschofenig.com/avispa/).
 
I used the formal method tool to verify some other protocols as well,
including HIP and 
http://www.tschofenig.com/svn/draft-vidya-mipshop-handover-keys-aaa/draf
t-vidya-mipshop-handover-keys-aaa-00.txt
 
It sometimes makes sense to verify IETF protocols in addition to the
reviews that are being done. I see these tools more as an additional
verification step that mostly benefits from the alternative way of
describing a protocol rather than from the value of the formal
verification itself. 
 
In any case, feel free to use the AVISPA tool to verify IETF protocols. 
 
Ciao
Hannes

________________________________

	Von: Salekul Islam [mailto:[email-masked]] 
	Gesendet: Montag, 15. Januar 2007 17:38
	An: [email-masked]
	Betreff: [eap] Security Properties Analysis of EAP-IKEv2

	Hi All,
	
	I like to know about the formal analysis of EAP-IKEv2. In the
Security Considerations section of draft-tschofenig-eap-ikev2, some
specific security terminologies required by RFC 3748 are described. 
	
	I have found an AVISPA model, which is three years old. Is there
any other model or formal analysis approach of EAP-IKEv2? Can we assume
this AVISPA model a good interpretation of the EAP-IKEv2 to validate
most of the security properties?
	
	I am more interested in the pass-through mode of EAP-IKEv2. I am
aware of the vulnerabilities of the AAA key transport (e.g., MITM
attack), but I am focusing the EAP method only. More specifically, if we
follow the EAP Key Management Framework draft, I am concerned about the
security properties analysis of phase 1a (see section 1.3 of
draft-ietf-eap-keying) of EAP-IKEv2.
	
	I have a general question to ask. I have noticed that most (not
all) of the EAP methods are not modeled and analyzed formally using a
tool. All of them have Security Considerations section where their
security properties are described in terms of RFC 3748. Is this the
standard (and only) way of dealing with security of these methods? Or
the WG has some future plan to deal this more concretely?
	
	Thanks and regards,
	
	Salekul 

________________________________

	Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
<http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0
e-4911fb2b2e6d>