[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: HIP and PKI reqs [RE: Identifier/locator recap]



Pekka Savola wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

I suggest not being dependent on crypto anything is wise it implies PKI
to the solution and I fear that is a non-starter?
No, HIP is smarter than that. [...
Uhh, no.  HIP requires either DNSsec or opportunistic key distribution a
la SSH.
Opportunistic key distribution a la SSH works pretty well.

Going further, HIP *without* DNSsec/PKI is slightly *more*
secure than today's insecured TCP/UDP, even if HIP is used
to implement mobility and/or multihoming.  See our security '
analysis in our recent NDSS'03 paper.

However, if you want to use HIP to secure something that
goes beyond mobility or multi-homing, or want to achieve
a security level that is more than slightly more secure
than the current unsecured IPv4, you have to rely on
DNSsec, or accept the vulnerabilities in opportunistic mode.

Summary:  HIP without DNSsec or PKI can provide security
for mobility and/or multi-homing that is acceptable according
to the current security requirements.

--Pekka Nikander