| Re: Proposed Resolution to Issue 357: Channel Binding Definition | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
|
From: Narayanan, Vidya (vidyan |
|
| Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 10:19:06 -0700 (PDT) | |
> > > > Based on the above, how about the following definition? > > > > > > "Channel Binding > > > > > > A secure mechanism for ensuring that a chosen set of channel > > > properties (such as authenticator identifiers and properties) are > > > agreed upon by the EAP peer and server." > > > >After Jari's email, I created a thread "Channel Binding > analysis" for > >further discussion. I still believe three party agreement > is essential > >for Channel Binding. To me the two party agreement mentioned above > >looks similar to issueing a Kerberos ticket that is never > verified by > >the consumers of the ticket. > > The text mentions authenticator identifiers and properties, > which presumably were agreed upon by the authenticator that > sent them (unless it's a > forgery). However, there are also properties which don't > relate to the > authenticator itself (such as Calling-Station-Id) but are > transmitted by the > authenticator (e.g. to the backend server). Are there any > cases where a > property to be verified by Channel Bindings is *not* > transmitted by the authenticator? Would the following work? > I cannot presently think of a property that needs verification and is not transmitted by the authenticator. > "A secure mechanism for ensuring that a subset of the > parameters transmitted by the authenticator (such as > authenticator identifiers and properties) are agreed upon by > the EAP peer and server." > This definition works for me. > I'm not sure what the definition of a "channel property" is > in this case. > One could argue for example that the Calling-Station-Id is > not a property of the channel -- but its verification is > still considered part of Channel Bindings. > The channel property definition is fuzzy to me as well. But, perhaps we don't need more detail in the EAP keying document itself. A subsequent channel binding document should get into more detail to clarify things like this. Vidya
- Re: Proposed Resolution to Issue 357: Channel Binding Definition, (continued)
-
Re: Proposed Resolution to Issue 357: Channel Binding Definition Bernard Aboba, June 7 2006
- Re: Proposed Resolution to Issue 357: Channel Binding Definition Yoshihiro Ohba, June 7 2006
- Re: Proposed Resolution to Issue 357: Channel Binding Definition Bernard Aboba, June 7 2006
- Re: Proposed Resolution to Issue 357: Channel Binding Definition Yoshihiro Ohba, June 8 2006
-
Re: Proposed Resolution to Issue 357: Channel Binding Definition Bernard Aboba, June 7 2006
Results generated by Tiger Technologies using MHonArc.