Security Threats and Requirements for Emergency Call Marking and Mapping
draft-ietf-ecrit-security-threats-05
Yes
(Jon Peterson)
No Objection
(Chris Newman)
(Cullen Jennings)
(Dan Romascanu)
(David Ward)
(Lars Eggert)
(Lisa Dusseault)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Mark Townsley)
(Ron Bonica)
(Ross Callon)
(Russ Housley)
(Sam Hartman)
(Tim Polk)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Chris Newman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
David Ward Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2007-06-21)
Unknown
This document identifies and describes threats that affect emergency
call mechanisms. As the Requirements document, this document is already
in good shape. However, there is one attack objective that I think is
very important, and that should be attended to a bit closer IMO:
> o to divert emergency responders to non-emergency sites. This memo
> has not identified any attacks within its intended scope that
> achieve this objective, so it will not be mentioned further.
Diverting emergency responders to non-emergency sites is actually not an
objective that an attacker might have, but rather a technique of
reaching the objective described in the first bullet ("to deny system
services to all users in a given area"). So the draft actually does
address this objective.
Still, I think the /possibility/ for an attacker to divert emergency
responders to non-emergency sites -- as a means of reaching the DoS
objective -- is important enough to get a bit further elaborated on, in
particular with respect to its relationship to the mechanism to be
developed by the Ecrit WG. I think that some clarification would be
useful along these lines:
Preventing diversion of emergency calls would likely require some
evidence about the existence of a reported emergency case, such as a
photograph, a video clip, or N previous calls reporting the same
emergency case. The decision of which proof would be acceptable, and
whether requiring such proof is something desirable in the first place,
is likely something that cannot be decided in the Ecrit WG. Preventing
diversion of emergency calls is hence something that is likely not to be
in scope of the Ecrit WG.
Maybe this should be clarified either in this document, or in the
Requirements document -- in particular because the Requirements document
currently only talks about verifying the caller's location, rather than
verifying whether there actually exists an emergency case at that location.
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ross Callon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Sam Hartman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Tim Polk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown