|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: Open Questions on iSCSI 07 securityFor SRP, check the associated text key definitions in the -07 draft. The one issue I know of is that the current specification allows arbitrary groups, and we probably need to select a few for which support is REQUIRED. Algorithms for confidentiality and integrity, along with selection of a keying/rekeying approach are on the Orange County agenda. Thanks, --David > -----Original Message----- > From: VAHUJA@aol.com [mailto:VAHUJA@aol.com] > Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 5:48 PM > To: ips@ece.cmu.edu > Cc: vahuja@aol.com > Subject: Open Questions on iSCSI 07 security > > > I have been reading the iSCSI security in the drafts s (06, > 07) and David's paper on the iSCSI security issues. I have a > few questions that seem to (me to) remain unaswered. If they > are already answered, I'd welcome the answers; if not - I > suggest we include these in the discussions on 8/28th at Irvine. > > AUTHENTICATION: The 06 level states authentication is a MUST > and the 07 level states that SRP is a MUST. But the SRP RFC > does not provide sufficient details on formats and protocols > that will be needed to allow > interoperability among different implementation. > > A related development is the SLAP protocol from Brocade that > uses PKI for authentication and possibly other use. Any > suggestions on converging the two approaches for > authenticating storage devices: iSCSI or otherwise. > > DATA INTEGRITY: This is a MUST in 06 level. But no algorithm > has been identified. The draft does state that IPSec can be > used here - and IPSec requires use of HMAC-MD5 and HMAC-SHA > 1, and a few optional. It'd perhaps be better to state in the > iSCSI standard the specific chosen algorithms for iSCSI Data > Integrity. > > CONFIDENTIALITY: I agree with David that we must specify the > algorithm, whther that's OPT or a MUST. > And what about key exchange (IKE, D-H etc.)? Also, IPSec, as > far as I can tell, not yet blessed AES - perhaps we should > address this. > > Thanks, Vijay >
Home Last updated: Tue Sep 04 01:03:59 2001 6315 messages in chronological order |