Security Directorate Review

[inesrob]

Source: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-roll-enrollment-priority-10-secdir-early-shekh-yusef-2024-01-29/

"The following is a quote from the Security Consideration section of the draft:
"The use of layer-2 or layer-3 security for RPL control messages prevents the
two aforementioned attacks, by preventing malicious nodes from becoming part of
the control plane."

The following quote is from RFC7416, section 7.1.2:
"A number of deployments, such as [ZigBeeIP] specify no Layer 3 (L3) / RPL
encryption or authentication and rely upon similar security at Layer 2 (L2).
These networks are immune to outside wiretapping attacks but are vulnerable to
passive (and active) routing attacks through compromises of nodes (see Section
8.2)."

The draft seems to suggest layer-2 security might be sufficient protection,
while RFC7416 seems to suggest that solely relying on layer-2 might not be
enough.

RFC7416, section 8.2 states:
"RPL provides for asymmetric authentication at L3 of the RPL Control Message
carrying the DIO, and this may be warranted in some deployments."

I feel that this should be discussed here to make it clear that in some
deployments, layer-2 by itself might not be sufficient and the use of
asymmetric authentication at L3 might be required."