[cgl_discussion] Re: [cgl_specs] Latest draft on security requirements

[Florence.Hussy at alcatel.fr]

Hello,

We, in Alcatel, had a review meeting of the "old" version of your document
last week - I have translated the comments to match the numbering of the
"new" version

Regards

Florence

*************************

Page 5, introduction, item 3:
Accountability is indeed important but Alcatel is not interrested in "non
repudiation" which is more for financial applications than telcos.
Furthermore, this functionality is probably very difficult to achieve /
implement

Page 6, Carrier grade context, minimum performance degradation:
It may be very difficult for some of the features described in the document
to achieve the target of 5% / 10%. It should be stated that security
features having a significant impact on the performance of the system
should be configurable

Page 8, current situation:
Alcatel does not agree that the thread of Trojan horses is not important -
You can insert a trojan horse by exploiting a fault on the system such as a
buffer overflow

Page 11, 6.3 IPsec options:
Alcatel does not require the IPsec options - only IPsec

Page 12, 6.5 Digital signatures
Digital signatures are not enough in themselves to guarantee the security -
Access control is required as well but this feature is probably outside the
scope of CGL

Page 18, 7.7 PKI:
This package should not be implemented as kernel code as it is very large
and complex and therefore bug prone
The requirement should state which part of PKI is important - Alcatel
thinks that only the client part is necessary

Page 19, 7.8 security management:
Remove the word "automatic" for the security patch insertion - Any patch
insertion musy be done in a controlled manner under the authority of the
administrator

 Page 26, 8.9 security management:
Simple security policies are potentially very difficult to achieve - A more
basic requirement could be to have well documented security policies - Any
"abstraction" can then be done at the administrator's level.