Hi Joel,

Do you want to propose some text that I could include as part of the
assumptions in the threat analysis section?
The intent of this threat analysis text is to include it as a subsection
of the security considerations section.

-Raj

On 2/3/12 1:51 PM, "ext Joel M. Halpern" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Can we please include in this document some articulation of the
>confidentiality assumption we are making with regard to the whitespace
>data itself?  I am not trying to object to the threats.  (And the
>personal information collection issues are enough to jsutify include
>confidentiality mechanisms in the solutions.)
>But I am still trying to get my head around this.  There are going to be
>hoards of whitespace devices.  They will be getting the data, and either
>using it themselves or retransmitting it.  The resulting data one
>whitespace availability will be visible to people and or devices which
>are not completely controlled by the regulatory agencies.
>As such, what is the role of confidentiality with regard to this
>information?
>
>Yours,
>Joel
>
>On 2/3/2012 2:34 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> Below is Rev 3 of the threat model based on feedback from Stephen, Nancy
>> and Gabor (Thanks).
>>
>> -Raj
>>
>>
>> Rev 3 (3/2/12)
>>
>> 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: User modifies a device to masquerade as another valid
>>         certified device
>>
>>         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: Unauthorized use of channels by an uncertified device
>>
>>         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.
>>         The master device querying the white space database may be
>>         operated by a law-enforcement agency and the communications
>>         between the device and the database are intended to be kept
>>         private. A malicious device should not be able to eavesdrop on
>>         such communications.
>>
>> Threat 6: Third party tracking of white space device location and
>>identity
>>
>>         A white space database may require a master device to provide
>>         its identity in addition to its location in the query request.
>>         Such location/identity information can be gleaned by an
>>         eavesdropper. A master device may prefer to keep the
>>         location/identity information secret. Hence the protocol should
>>         provide a means to protect the location and identity
>>         information of the master device and prevent tracking of
>>         locations associated with a white space database. If
>>         regulations do not require the identity of the master device to
>>         be provided to the white space database, the master is not
>>         required to include its identity in the query.
>>
>>
>> Threat 7: Termination of device service for reasons other than
>>         incumbent protection
>>
>>         A white space database may include a mechanism by which service
>>         and channels allocated to a master device can be revoked. A
>>         malicious node can send a revoke message to a master
>>         device. This results in denial of service to the master
>>         device.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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