Hi Eric,

ke, 2020-02-19 kello 13:20 -0800, Eric Rescorla kirjoitti:
> > > > > S 5.8.
> > > > >>    
> > > > >>    5.8.  RELAY_HMAC Parameter
> > > > >>    
> > > > >>       As specified in Legacy ICE-HIP [RFC5770], the
> > RELAY_HMAC
> > > > parameter
> > > > >>       value has the TLV type 65520.  It has the same
> > semantics
> > > > as RVS_HMAC
> > > > >>       [RFC8004].
> > > > > 
> > > > > What key is used for the HMAC?
> > > > 
> > > > clarified this as follows:
> > > > 
> > > > [..] It has the same semantics as RVS_HMAC as specified in
> > section
> > > > 4.2.1 
> > > > in [RFC8004].  Similarly as with RVS_HMAC, also RELAY_HMAC is
> > is
> > > > keyed 
> > > > with the HIP integrity key (HIP-lg or HIP-gl as specified in
> > > > section 6.5 
> > > > in [RFC7401]), established during the relay registration
> > procedure
> > > > as 
> > > > described in Section 4.1.
> > > 
> > > This seems like it might have potential for cross-protocol
> > attacks on
> > > the key. Why
> > > is this OK>
> > 
> > this is standard way of deriving keys in HIP. The keying procedure
> > is
> > the same as with specified in RFC8004. If there is some attack
> > scenario, please describe it in detail?
> > Or is there some editorial issue here?
> 
> I'm not sure. When I read this text it appears to say that you should
> be using the same key for two kinds of messages. Is that correct?

the key is always specific to a Host Association, i.e., unique between
a Relay Client and a Relay Server. So if there is a Rendezvous server
(used with RVS_HMAC), this would be a different host and different Host
Association. If the same host provides both rendezvous and relay
service, it should be fine to reuse the same key.
_______________________________________________
Hipsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec

Reply via email to