|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: Security Use Requirements> > >I think there is a much easier way than the two methods you > describe below. > >If the iSCSI authentication is taking place using the SA > negotiated by IKE, > >then you have an implicit relationship between IKE and iSCSI > authentication, > >right? > > That would be fine if there is only one iSCSI authentication > per IKE QM > SA. Is that realistic? > Yes, you have a point in that multiple iSCSI devices MAY exist behind the same IP address, and each device would be sharing the same IKE SA if they were talking to the same peer IP address. This would be the case for a storage device that had multiple WWUI's. It could also happen if the IP address/IKE endpoint was a security gateway, and there was a network behind it supporting multiple iSCSI devices. As I mentioned before, physical security is needed to handle each of these cases, to ensure a hostile entity can't use the same IP address that was authenticated by IKE. In the former case, physical security is pretty much assured, since both IKE/IPSec and the multiple iSCSI WWUI's share not only the same physical box, but also the same TCP stack. In the latter, yes of course additional measures MUST be taken to ensure there are no hostile entities living behind a security gateway. Sure, an implementation geared to the paranoid user could do what you prescribed in your previous message (but your suggestions only make sense for a native iSCSI device). But I don't think these measures should be a MUST. Physical security is a non-negotiable requirement in both cases, and especially in the standalone security gateway scenario, this is a quite well understood requirement in the security architecture document RFC 2401 when it describes tunnel mode. Josh
Home Last updated: Tue Sep 04 01:05:32 2001 6315 messages in chronological order |