> On 11 Sep 2020, at 12:40, Nick Lamb <n...@tlrmx.org> wrote: > > On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 12:32:03 +0530 > tirumal reddy <kond...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The MUD URL is encrypted and shared only with the authorized >> components in the network. An attacker cannot read the MUD URL and >> identify the IoT device. Otherwise, it provides the attacker with >> guidance on what vulnerabilities may be present on the IoT device. > > RFC 8520 envisions that the MUD URL is broadcast as a DHCP option and > over LLDP without - so far as I was able to see - any mechanism by which > it should be meaningfully "encrypted" as to prevent an attacker on your > network from reading it.
That’s a bit of an overstatement. RFC 8520 specifies a component architecture. It names three ways of emitting a URL (DHCP, LLDP, 802.1X w/ certificate). Two other mechanisms have already been developed (QR code, Device Provisioning Protocol), and a 3rd new method is on the way for cellular devices. I would not universally claim that a MUD URL is secret but neither would I claim it is not. The management tooling will know which is which, as will the manufacturer, and can make decisions accordingly. This having been said, it seems to me we are off on the wrong foot here. The serious argument that needs to be addressed is Ben’s and EKR's. We have to be careful about ossification. Eliot _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
