Most of this looks good.
The last one does not seem to make sense to me.
I presume I am missing something. What follows is why I am confused, with apologies if I have overlooked something.

Given the nature of the system, the number of ways for a non-cooperative client to get the information about what the compliant clients are allowed to do seems myriad. And the number of ways a non-compliant client can mis-behave is also myriad.
So I do not actually understand the threat.

I can imagine privacy-driven confidentiality with regard to requests. I hope we don't have to go there, but that would be a threat that I would think was more of an issue than receving a copy of a response.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

On 1/27/2012 2:39 PM, [email protected] wrote:

Hello,

While discussing the requirements we concluded that it would be useful to
have a threat model for PAWS. Below is an initial writeup of the threat
model. This threat model can be included in the Security considerations
section of the Use-case and Requirements I-D. Security requirements can be
derived from this threat model.
Comments welcome.

-Raj


Threat model for the PAWS protocol
----------------------------------

Assumptions:
............

o It is assumed that an attacker has full access to the network medium
   between the master device and the white space database. The attacker
   may be able to eavesdrop on any communications between these
   entities. The link between the master device and the white space
   database can be wired or wireless and provides IP connectivity.

o It is assumed that the master device or the white space database
   have NOT been compromised from a security standpoint.

Threat 1: Obtain master device authentication/authorization secrets
        The master device needs to authenticate itself with the white
        space database prior to requesting channel information. The
        attacker may try to get access to the secrets of the master
        device which can be used maliciously. The effect of such an
        attack being successful would result in a malicious client
        replaying the stolen authentication/authorization secrets to a
        white space database.

Threat 2: Spoofed white space database
        A master device discovers a white space database(s) thru which
        it can query for channel information. The master device needs
        to ensure that the white space database with which it
        communicates with is an authentic entity. The white space
        database needs to provide its identity to the master device
        which can confirm the validity/authenticty of the database. An
        attacker may attempt to spoof a white space database and
        provide responses to a master device which are malicious and
        result in the master device causing interference to the primary
        user of the spectrum.

Threat 3: Modifying a query request
        An attacker may modify the query request sent by a master
        device to a white space database. The attacker may change the
        location of the device or the capabilities in terms of its
        transmit power or antenna height etc. which could result in the
        database responding with incorrect information about available
        channels or max transmit power allowed. The result of such an
        attack is that the master device would cause intereference to
        the primary user of the spectrum. It could also result in a
        denial of service to the master device by indicating that no
        channels are available.

Threat 4: Modifying a query response
        An attacker could modify the query response sent by the white
        space database to a master device. The channel information or
        transmit power allowed type of parameters carried in the
        response could be modified by the attacker resulting in the
        master device using channels that are not available at a
        location or transmitting at a greater power level than allowed
        resulting in interference to the primary user of that
        spectrum. Alternatively the attacker may indicate no channel
        availability at a location resulting in a denial of service to
        the master device.

Threat 5: Using query response information
        An attacker may be a master device which is not certified for
        use by the relevant regulatory body. The attacker may listen to
        the communication between a valid master device and white space
        database and utilize the information about available channels
        in the response message by utilizing those channels. The result
        of such an attack is unauthorized use of channels by a master
        device which is not certified to operate.




_______________________________________________
paws mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws

_______________________________________________
paws mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws

Reply via email to