Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

DTLS replay protection #13

Open
chrysn opened this issue Oct 7, 2020 · 2 comments
Open

DTLS replay protection #13

chrysn opened this issue Oct 7, 2020 · 2 comments

Comments

@chrysn
Copy link
Member

chrysn commented Oct 7, 2020

Many CoAP users are unaware of DTLS not mandating replay protection.

We may want to consider requiring it for CoAP it at the next possible point. (RD is about to do so on its own, as it came up there).

@boaks
Copy link

boaks commented Feb 17, 2021

requiring it for CoAP it at the next possible point.

I'm not sure, if this will be the right way.
Doesn't it depend on the use-case?
There are users, who don't use the "replay protection" by intention, because they use e.g. SMS and with that it's very hard. If their application doesn't suffer from replay, why should it be required?
And just to say, if the application requires even more protection, e.g. timeshift attack (e.g. delay the "open the door request" by 5 Minutes, so that the authorized person give up an the attacker takes the open door), then this doesn't help.

I would more emphasis on the possibility and use-cases than on making it mandatory.

@chrysn
Copy link
Member Author

chrysn commented Feb 28, 2021

It does depend on the use case, and going all replay-protect may be overkill. In particular, the path of replay protection was not taken in RD eventually, and more explicit request freshness terminology introduced instead (in core-wg/resource-directory#291) that makes DTLS replay protection optional again.

The very least thing that would resolve the misalignment issue of people being surprised by the replay protection being optional would be to point out explicitly in the clarifications that it is optional, and outline consequences and mitigation.

@cabo cabo transferred this issue from core-wg/corrclar-old Jul 22, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants