[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits] [IPR]

Versions: (draft-tschofenig-ecrit-trustworthy-location) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 RFC 7378

ECRIT Working Group                                        H. Tschofenig
INTERNET-DRAFT                                    Nokia Siemens Networks
Category: Informational                                   H. Schulzrinne
Expires: November 25, 2011                           Columbia University
                                                          B. Aboba (ed.)
                                                   Microsoft Corporation
                                                             24 May 2011

                    Trustworthy Location Information
              draft-ietf-ecrit-trustworthy-location-02.txt

Abstract

   For some location-based applications, such as emergency calling or
   roadside assistance, it is important to be able to determine whether
   location information is trustworthy.

   This document outlines potential threats to trustworthy location and
   analyzes the operational issues with potential solutions.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on November 25, 2011.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must



H. Tschofenig, et. al         Informational                     [Page 1]


INTERNET-DRAFT      Trustworthy Location Information         24 May 2011


   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Threats  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.1.  Location Spoofing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.2.  Identity Spoofing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   4.  Solution Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.1.  Location Signing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.2.  Location by Reference  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.3.  Proxy Adding Location  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   5.  Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     5.1.  Attribution to a Specific Trusted Source . . . . . . . . . 11
     5.2.  Application to a Specific Point in Time  . . . . . . . . . 16
     5.3.  Linkage to a Specific Endpoint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   8.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     9.1. Informative references  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21


























H. Tschofenig, et. al         Informational                     [Page 2]


INTERNET-DRAFT      Trustworthy Location Information         24 May 2011


1.  Introduction

   The operation of a number of public and commercial services depend
   upon location information in their operations.  Emergency services,
   such as fire department,  ambulance and police, are among these, as
   are commercial services such as food delivery and roadside
   assistance.

   Users of the telephone network can summon emergency services such as
   ambulance, fire and police using a well-known emergency service
   number (e.g., 9-1-1 in North America, 1-1-2 in Europe).  Location
   information is used to route emergency calls to the appropriate
   regional Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) that serves the caller
   to dispatch first-level responders to the emergency site.

   Physical security is often based on location.  Light switches in
   buildings are not typically protected by keycards or passwords, but
   are only accessible to those within the perimeter of the building.
   Merchants processing credit card payments already use location
   information to estimate the risk that a transaction is fraudulent,
   based on translation of the HTTP client's IP address to an estimated
   location.  In these cases, location information can be used to
   augment identity or, in some cases, avoid the need for role-based
   authorization.

   For services that depend on the accuracy of location information in
   their operation, the ability to determine the trustworthiness of
   location information may be important.  Prank calls have been a
   problem for emergency services, dating back to the time of street
   corner call boxes.  Individual prank calls waste emergency services
   and possibly endanger bystanders or emergency service personnel as
   they rush to the reported scene of a fire or accident.  However, a
   recent increase in the frequency and sophistication of the attacks
   has lead to the FBI issuing a warning [Swatting].

   In situations where it is possible to place emergency calls without
   accountability, experience has shown that the frequency of nuisance
   calls can rise dramatically.  For example, where emergency calls have
   been allowed from handsets lacking a SIM card, or where ownership of
   the SIM card cannot be determined,  the frequency of nuisance calls
   has often been unacceptably high [TASMANIA][UK][SA].

   In emergency services deployments utilizing voice over IP, many of
   the assumptions of the public switched telephone network (PSTN) and
   public land mobile network (PLMN) no longer hold.  While the local
   telephone company provides both physical access and the phone
   service, with VoIP there is a split between the role of the Access
   Infrastructure Provider (AIP), and the Application (Voice) Service



H. Tschofenig, et. al         Informational                     [Page 3]


INTERNET-DRAFT      Trustworthy Location Information         24 May 2011


   Provider (VSP).  The VSP may be located far away from the AIP and may
   either have no business relationship with the AIP or may be a
   competitor.  It is also likely that the VSP will have no relationship
   with the PSAP.

   In some situations it is possible for the end host to determine its
   own location using technology such as the Global Positioning System
   (GPS).  Where the end host cannot determine location on its own,
   mechanisms have been standardized to make civic and geodetic location
   available to the end host, including LLDP-MED [LLDP-MED], DHCP
   extensions [RFC4776][I-D.ietf-geopriv-rfc3825bis], HELD [RFC5985], or
   link-layer specifications such as [IEEE-802.11y].  The server
   offering this information is known as a Location Information Server
   (LIS).  The LIS may be deployed by an AIP, or it may be run by a
   Location Service Provider (LSP) which may have no relationship with
   the AIP, the VSP or the PSAP.  The location information is then
   provided, by reference or value, to the service-providing entities,
   i.e. location recipients, via application protocols, such as HTTP,
   SIP or XMPP.

   This document investigates security threats in Section 3, and
   outlines potential solutions in Section 4.  Operational
   considerations are provided in Section 5 and security considerations
   are discussed in Section 6.

2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

   This document uses terms from [RFC5012] Section 3.

3.  Threats

   This document focuses on threats deriving from the introduction of
   untrustworthy location information by end hosts, regardless of
   whether this occurs intentionally or unintentionally.

   In addition to threats arising from the intentional forging of
   location information, end hosts may be induced to provide
   untrustworthy location information.  For example, end hosts may
   obtain location from civilian GPS, which is vulnerable to spoofing
   [GPSCounter] or from third party Location Service Providers (LSPs)
   which may be vulnerable to attack or may not warrant the use of their
   services for emergency purposes.

   Emergency services have three finite resources subject to denial of



H. Tschofenig, et. al         Informational                     [Page 4]


INTERNET-DRAFT      Trustworthy Location Information         24 May 2011


   service attacks:  the network and server infrastructure, call takers
   and dispatchers, and the first responders, such as fire fighters and
   police officers.  Protecting the network infrastructure is similar to
   protecting other high-value service providers, except that location
   information may be used to filter call setup requests, to weed out
   requests that are out of area.  PSAPs even for large cities may only
   have a handful of PSAP call takers on duty, so even if they can, by
   questioning the caller, eliminate a lot of prank calls, they are
   quickly overwhelmed by even a small-scale attack.  Finally, first
   responder resources are scarce, particularly during mass-casualty
   events.

   Legacy emergency services rely on the ability to identify callers, as
   well as on the difficulty of location spoofing for normal users to
   limit prank calls.  The ability to ascertain identity is important,
   since the threat of severe punishments reduces prank calls.
   Mechanically placing a large number of emergency calls that appear to
   come from different locations is difficult.  Calls from pay phones
   are subject to greater scrutiny by the call taker.  In the current
   system, it would be very difficult for an attacker from country 'Foo'
   to attack the emergency services infrastructure located in country
   'Bar'.

   One of the main motivations of an adversary in the emergency services
   context is to prevent callers from utilizing emergency service
   support.  This can be done by a variety of means, such as
   impersonating a PSAP or directory servers, attacking SIP signaling
   elements and location servers.

   Attackers may want to modify, prevent or delay emergency calls.  In
   some cases, this will lead the PSAP to dispatch emergency personnel
   to an emergency that does not exist and, hence, the personnel might
   not be available to other callers.  It might also be possible for an
   attacker to impede the users from reaching an appropriate PSAP by
   modifying the location of an end host or the information returned
   from the mapping protocol.  In some countries, regulators may not
   require the authenticated identity of the emergency caller, as is
   true for PSTN-based emergency calls placed from pay phones or SIM-
   less cell phones today.  Furthermore, if identities can easily be
   crafted (as it is the case with many VoIP offerings today), then the
   value of emergency caller authentication itself might be limited.  As
   a consequence, an attacker can forge emergency call information
   without the chance of being held accountable for its own actions.

   The above-mentioned attacks are mostly targeting individual emergency
   callers or a very small fraction of them.  If attacks are, however,
   launched against the mapping architecture (see [RFC5582] or against
   the emergency services IP network (including PSAPs), a larger region



H. Tschofenig, et. al         Informational                     [Page 5]


INTERNET-DRAFT      Trustworthy Location Information         24 May 2011


   and a large number of potential emergency callers are affected.  The
   call takers themselves are a particularly scarce resource and if
   human interaction by these call takers is required then this can very
   quickly have severe consequences.

   To provide a structured analysis we distinguish between three
   adversary models:

   External adversary model:  The end host, e.g., an emergency caller
      whose location is going to be communicated, is honest and the
      adversary may be located between the end host and the location
      server or between the end host and the PSAP.  None of the
      emergency service infrastructure elements act maliciously.

   Malicious infrastructure adversary model:  The emergency call routing
      elements, such as the LIS, the LoST infrastructure, used for
      mapping locations to PSAP address, or call routing elements, may
      act maliciously.

   Malicious end host adversary model:  The end host itself acts
      maliciously, whether the owner is aware of this or whether it is
      acting as a bot.

   In this document, we focus only on the malicious end host adversary
   model.

3.1.  Location Spoofing

   An adversary can provide false location information in an emergency
   call in order to misdirect emergency resources.  For calls
   originating within the PSTN, this attack can be carried out via
   caller-id spoofing.  Where location is attached to the emergency call
   by an end host,  several avenues are available to provide false
   location information:

      1.  The end host could fabricate a PIDF-LO and convey it within an
      emergency call;

      2.  The VSP (and indirectly a LIS) could be fooled into using the
      wrong identity (such as an IP address) for location lookup,
      thereby providing the end host with misleading location
      information;

      3.  Inaccurate or out-of-date information (such spoofed GPS
      signals, a stale wiremap or an inaccurate access point location
      database) could be utilized by the LIS or the endhost in its
      location determination, thereby leading to an inaccurate
      determination of location.



H. Tschofenig, et. al         Informational                     [Page 6]


INTERNET-DRAFT      Trustworthy Location Information         24 May 2011


   By analysis of the SIP headers, it may be possible to flag situations
   where the conveyed location is suspect (e.g. potentially wrong city,
   state, country or continent).  However, in other situations only
   entities close to the caller may be able to verify the correctness of
   location information.

   The following list presents threats specific to location information
   handling:

   Place shifting:  Trudy, the adversary, pretends to be at an arbitrary
      location.  In some cases, place shifting can be limited in range,
      e.g., to the coverage area of a particular cell tower.

   Time shifting:  Trudy pretends to be at a location she was a while
      ago.

   Location theft:  Trudy observes Alice's location and replays it as
      her own.

   Location swapping:  Trudy and Malory, located in different locations,
      can collude and swap location information and pretend to be in
      each other's location.

3.2.  Identity Spoofing

   With calls originating on an IP network, at least two forms of
   identity are relevant, with the distinction created by the split
   between the AIP and the VSP:

   (a) network access identity such as might be determined via
   authentication (e.g., using the Extensible Authentication Protocol
   (EAP) [RFC3748]);

   (b) caller identity, such as might be determined from authentication
   of the emergency caller at the VoIP application layer.

   If the adversary did not authenticate itself to the VSP, then
   accountability may depend on verification of the network access
   identity.  However, this also may not have been authenticated, such
   as in the case where an open IEEE 802.11 Access Point is used to
   initiate a nuisance emergency call.  Although endpoint information
   such as the IP or MAC address may have been logged, tying this back
   to the device owner may be challenging.

   Unlike the existing telephone system, VoIP emergency calls could
   require strong identity, which need not necessarily be coupled to a
   business relationship with the AIP, ISP or VSP.  However, due to the
   time-critical nature of emergency calls, multi-layer authentication



H. Tschofenig, et. al         Informational                     [Page 7]


INTERNET-DRAFT      Trustworthy Location Information         24 May 2011


   is undesirable, so that in most cases, only the device placing the
   call will be able to be identified, making the system vulnerable to
   bot-net attacks. Furthermore, deploying additional credentials for
   emergency service purposes (such as certificates) increases costs,
   introduces a significant administrative overhead and is only useful
   if widely deployed.

4.  Solution Proposals

   This section presents three potential solutions to the described
   threats: location signing (Section 4.1), location by reference
   (Section 4.2) and proxy added location (Section 4.3).

4.1.  Location Signing

   One way to avoid location spoofing is to let a trusted location
   server sign the location information before it is sent to the end
   host, i.e., the entity subject to the location determination process.
   The signed location information is then verified by the location
   recipient and not by the target.  Figure 1 shows the communication
   model with the target requesting signed location in step (a), the
   location server returns it in step (b) and it is then conveyed to the
   location recipient in step (c) who verifies it.  For SIP, the
   procedures described in [I-D.ietf-sipcore-location-conveyance] are
   applicable for location conveyance.

                +-----------+               +-----------+
                |           |               | Location  |
                |    LIS    |               | Recipient |
                |           |               |           |
                +-+-------+-+               +----+------+
                  ^       |                    --^
                  |       |                  --
    Geopriv       |Req.   |                --
    Location      |Signed |Signed        -- Geopriv
    Configuration |Loc.   |Loc.        --   Using Protocol
    Protocol      |(a)    |(b)       --     (e.g., SIP)
                  |       v        --       (c)
                +-+-------+-+    --
                | Target /  |  --
                | End Host  +
                |           |
                +-----------+

                        Figure 1: Location Signing

   Additional information, such as timestamps or expiration times, has
   to be included together with the signed location to limit replay



H. Tschofenig, et. al         Informational                     [Page 8]


INTERNET-DRAFT      Trustworthy Location Information         24 May 2011


   attacks.  If the location is retrieved from a location server, even a
   stationary end host has to periodically obtain a fresh signed
   location, or incur the additional delay of querying during the
   emergency call.  Bot nets are also unlikely to be deterred by
   location signing.  However, accurate location information would limit
   the usable subset of the bot net, as only hosts within the PSAP
   serving area would be useful in placing calls.

   To prevent location-swapping attacks it is necessary to include some
   some target specific identity information.  The included information
   depends on the purpose, namely either real-time verification by the
   location recipient or for the purpose of a post-mortem analysis when
   the location recipient wants to determine the legal entity behind the
   target for prosecution (if this is possible).  As argued in Section 6
   the operational considerations make a real-time verification
   difficult.  A strawman proposal for location signing is provided by
   [I-D.thomson-geopriv-location-dependability].

   Still, for large-scale attacks launched by bot nets, this is unlikely
   to be helpful.  Location signing is also difficult when the host
   provides its own location via GPS, which is likely to be a common
   occurrence for mobile devices.  Trusted computing approaches, with
   tamper-proof GPS modules, may be needed in that case.  After all, a
   device can always pretend to have a GPS device and the recipient has
   no way of verifying this or forcing disclosure of non-GPS-derived
   location information.

   Location verification may be most useful if it is used in conjunction
   with other mechanisms.  For example, a call taker can verify that the
   region that corresponds to the IP address of the media stream roughly
   corresponds to the location information reported by the caller.  To
   make the use of bot nets more difficult, a CAPTCHA-style test may be
   applied to suspicious calls, although this idea is quite
   controversial for emergency services, at the danger of delaying or
   even rejecting valid calls.

4.2.  Location by Reference

   The location-by-reference concept was developed so that end hosts
   could avoid having to periodically query the location server for up-
   to-date location information in a mobile environment.  Additionally,
   if operators do not want to disclose location information to the end
   host without charging them, location-by-reference provides a
   reasonable alternative.

   Figure 2 shows the communication model with the target requesting a
   location reference in step (a), the location server returns the
   reference in step (b), and it is then conveyed to the location



H. Tschofenig, et. al         Informational                     [Page 9]


INTERNET-DRAFT      Trustworthy Location Information         24 May 2011


   recipient in step (c).  The location recipient needs to resolve the
   reference with a request in step (d).  Finally, location information
   is returned to the Location Recipient afterwards.  For location
   conveyance in SIP, the procedures described in [I-D.ietf-sip-
   location-conveyance] are applicable.

                +-----------+  Geopriv      +-----------+
                |           |  Location     | Location  |
                |    LIS    +<------------->+ Recipient |
                |           | Dereferencing |           |
                +-+-------+-+ Protocol (d)  +----+------+
                  ^       |                    --^
                  |       |                  --
    Geopriv       |Req.   |                --
    Location      |LbyR   |LbyR          -- Geopriv
    Configuration |(a)    |(b)         --   Using Protocol
    Protocol      |       |          --     (e.g., SIP)
                  |       V        --       (c)
                +-+-------+-+    --
                | Target /  |  --
                | End Host  +
                |           |
                +-----------+

                      Figure 2: Location by Reference

   The details for the dereferencing operations vary with the type of
   reference, such as a HTTP, HTTPS, SIP, SIPS URI or a SIP presence
   URI.  HTTP-Enabled Location Delivery (HELD) [RFC5985] is an example
   of a protocol that is able to return such references.

   For location-by-reference, the location server needs to maintain one
   or several URIs for each target, timing out these URIs after a
   certain amount of time.  References need to expire to prevent the
   recipient of such a URL from being able to permanently track a host
   and to offer garbage collection functionality for the location
   server.

   Off-path adversaries must be prevented from obtaining the target's
   location.  The reference contains a randomized component that
   prevents third parties from guessing it.  When the location recipient
   fetches up-to-date location information from the location server, it
   can also be assured that the location information is fresh and not
   replayed.  However, this does not address location swapping.

   However, location-by-reference does not offer significant security
   benefits if the end host uses GPS to determine its location.  At
   best, a network provider can use cell tower or triangulation



H. Tschofenig, et. al         Informational                    [Page 10]


INTERNET-DRAFT      Trustworthy Location Information         24 May 2011


   information to limit the inaccuracy of user-provided location
   information.

4.3.  Proxy Adding Location

   Instead of making location information available to the end host, it
   is possible to allow an entity in the AIP, or associated with the
   AIP, to retrieve the location information on behalf of the end point.
   This solution is possible when the application layer messages are
   routed through an entity with the ability to determine the location
   information of the end point, for example based on the end host's IP
   or MAC address.

   When the untrustworthy end host does not have the ability to access
   location information, it cannot modify it either.  Proxies can use
   various authentication security techniques, including SIP Identity
   [RFC4474], to ensure that modifications to the location in transit
   can be detected by the location recipient (e.g., the PSAP).  As noted
   above, this is unlikely to work for GPS-based location determination
   techniques.

   The obvious disadvantage of this approach is that there is a need to
   deploy application layer entities, such as SIP proxies, at AIPs or
   associated with AIPs.  This requires a standardized VoIP profile to
   be deployed at every end device and at every AIP, for example, based
   on SIP.  This might impose a certain interoperability challenge.
   Additionally, the AIP more or less takes the responsibility for
   emergency calls, even for customers they have no direct or indirect
   relationship with.  To provide identity information about the
   emergency caller from the VSP it would be necessary to let the AIP
   and the VSP to interact for authentication (see, for example,
   [RFC4740]).  This interaction along the Authentication, Authorization
   and Accounting infrastructure (see ) is often based on business
   relationships between the involved entities.  The AIP and the VSP are
   very likely to have no such business relationship, particularly when
   talking about an arbitrary VSP somewhere on the Internet.  In case
   that the interaction between the AIP and the VSP fails due to the
   lack of a business relationship then typically a fall-back would be
   provided where no emergency caller identity information is made
   available to the PSAP and the emergency call still has to be
   completed.

5.  Operational Considerations

5.1.  Attribution to a Specific Trusted Source

   [NENA-i2] Section 3.7 describes some of the aspects of attribution as
   follows:



H. Tschofenig, et. al         Informational                    [Page 11]


INTERNET-DRAFT      Trustworthy Location Information         24 May 2011


      The i2 solution proposes a Location Information Server (LIS) be
      the source for distributing location information within an access
      network.  Furthermore the validity, integrity and authenticity of
      this information are directly attributed to the LIS operator.

   Section 6.1.1 describes the issues that arise in ensuring the
   validity of location information provided by the LIS operator.
   Section 6.1.2 and Section 6.1.3 describe operational issues that
   arise in ensuring the integrity and authenticity of location
   information provided by the LIS operator.

5.1.1.  Validity

   In existing networks where location information is both determined by
   the access/voice service provider as well as communicated by the AIP/
   VSP, responsibility for location validity can be attributed entirely
   to a single party, namely the AIP/VSP.

   However, on the Internet, not only may the AIP and VSP represent
   different parties, but location determination may depend on
   information contributed by parties trusted by neither the AIP nor
   VSP, or even the operator of the Location Information Server (LIS).
   In such circumstances, mechanisms for enhancing the integrity or
   authenticity of location data contribute little toward ensuring the
   validity of that data.

   It should be understood that the means by which location is
   determined may not necessarily relate to the means by which the
   endpoint communicates with the LIS.  Just because a Location
   Configuration Protocol (LCP) operates at a particular layer does not
   imply that the location data communicated by that protocol is derived
   solely based on information obtained at that layer.  In some
   circumstances, LCP implementations may base their location
   determination on information gathered from a variety of sources which
   may merit varying levels of trust, such as information obtained from
   the calling endpoint, or wiremap information that is time consuming
   to verify or may rapidly go out of date.

   For example, consider the case of a Location Information Server (LIS)
   that utilizes LLDP-MED [LLDP-MED] endpoint move detection
   notifications in determining calling endpoint location.  Regardless
   of whether the LIS implementation utilizes an LCP operating above the
   link layer (such as an application layer protocol such as HELD
   [RFC5985]), the validity of the location information conveyed would
   be dependent on the security properties of LLDP-MED.

   [LLDP-MED] Section 13.3 defines the endpoint move detection
   notification as follows:



H. Tschofenig, et. al         Informational                    [Page 12]


INTERNET-DRAFT      Trustworthy Location Information         24 May 2011


      lldpXMedTopologyChangeDetected NOTIFICATION-TYPE
           OBJECTS { lldpRemChassisIdSubtype,
                     lldpRemChassisId,
                     lldpXMedRemDeviceClass
                   }
                 STATUS current
           DESCRIPTION
                     "A notification generated by the local device
                      sensing a change in the topology that
                      indicates a new remote device attached to a
                      local port, or a remote device disconnected
                      or moved from one port to another."
                  ::= { lldpXMedNotifications 1 }

                    Figure 3: Interworking Architecture

   As noted in Section 7.4 of [LLDP-MED], the lldpRemChassisIdSubtype,
   lldpRemChassisId and lldpXMedRemDeviceClass variables are determined
   from the Chassis ID (1) and LLDP-MED Device Type Type-Length-Value
   (TLV) tuples provided within the LLDP advertisement of the calling
   device.  As noted in [LLDP-MED] Section 9.2.3, all Endpoint Devices
   use the Network address ID subtype (5) by default.  In order to
   provide topology change notifications in a timely way, it cannot
   necessarily be assumed that a Network Connectivity devices will
   validate the network address prior to transmission of the move
   detection notification.  As a result, there is no guarantee that the
   network address reported by the endpoint will correspond to that
   utilized by the device.

   The discrepancy need not be due to nefarious reasons.  For example,
   an IPv6-capable endpoint may utilize multiple IPv6 addresses.
   Similarly, an IPv4-capable endpoint may initially utilize a Link-
   Local IPv4 address [RFC3927] and then may subsequently acquire a
   DHCP-assigned routable address.  All addresses utilized by the
   endpoint device may not be advertised in LLDP, or even if they are,
   endpoint move detection notification may not be triggered, either
   because no LinkUp/LinkDown notifications occur (e.g. the host adds or
   changes an address without rebooting) or because these notifications
   were not detectable by the Network Connectivity device (the endpoint
   device was connected to a hub rather than directly to a switch).

   Similar issues may arise in situations where the LIS utilizes DHCP
   lease data to obtain location information.  Where the endpoint
   address was not obtained via DHCP (such as via manual assignment,
   stateless auto-configuration [RFC4862] or Link-Local IPv4 self-
   assignment), no lease information will be available to enable
   determination of device location.  This situation should be expected
   to become increasingly common as IPv6-capable endpoints are deployed,



H. Tschofenig, et. al         Informational                    [Page 13]


INTERNET-DRAFT      Trustworthy Location Information         24 May 2011


   and Location Configuration Protocol (LCP) interactions occur over
   IPv6.

   Even in scenarios in which the LIS relies on location data obtained
   from the IP MIB [RFC4293] and the Bridge MIB [RFC4188], availability
   of location determination information is not assured.  In an
   enterprise scale network, maintenance of current location information
   depends on the ability of the management station to retrieve data via
   polling of network devices.  As the number of devices increases,
   constraints of network latency and packet loss may make it
   increasingly difficult to ensure that all devices are polled on a
   sufficiently frequent interval.  In addition, in large networks, it
   is likely that tables will be large so that when UDP transport is
   used, query responses will fragment, resulting in increasing packet
   loss or even difficulties in firewall or NAT traversal.

   Furthermore, even in situations where the location data can be
   presumed to exist and be valid, there may be issues with the
   integrity of the retrieval process.  For example, where the LIS
   depends on location information obtained from a MIB notification or
   query, unless SNMPv3 [RFC3411] is used, data integrity and
   authenticity is not assured in transit between the network
   connectivity device and the LIS.

   From these examples, it should be clear that the availability or
   validity of location data is a property of the LIS system design and
   implementation rather than an inherent property of the LCP.  As a
   result, mechanisms utilized to protect the integrity and authenticity
   of location data do not necessarily provide assurances relating to
   the validity or provenance of that data.

5.1.2.  Location Signing

   [NENA-i2] Section 3.7 includes recommendations relating to location
   signing:

      Location determination is out of scope for NENA, but we can offer
      guidance on what should be considered when designing mechanisms to
      report location:

      1.  The location object should be digitally signed.

      2.  The certificate for the signer (LIS operator) should be
          rooted in VESA.  For this purpose, VPC and ERDB operators
          should issue certs to LIS operators.

      3.  The signature should include a timestamp.




H. Tschofenig, et. al         Informational                    [Page 14]


INTERNET-DRAFT      Trustworthy Location Information         24 May 2011


      4.  Where possible, the Location Object should be refreshed
          periodically, with the signature (and thus the timestamp)
          being refreshed as a consequence.

      5.  Anti-spoofing mechanisms should be applied to the Location
          Reporting method.

      [Note:  The term Valid Emergency Services Authority (VESA) refers
      to the root certificate authority.]

   Signing of location objects implies the development of a trust
   hierarchy that would enable a certificate chain provided by the LIS
   operator to be verified by the PSAP.  Rooting the trust hierarchy in
   VESA can be accomplished either by having the VESA directly sign the
   LIS certificates, or by the creation of intermediate CAs certified by
   the VESA, which will then issue certificates to the LIS.  In terms of
   the workload imposed on the VESA, the latter approach is highly
   preferable.  However, this raises the question of who would operate
   the intermediate CAs and what the expectations would be.

   In particular, the question arises as to the requirements for LIS
   certificate issuance, and whether they are significantly different
   from say, requirements for issuance of an SSL/TLS web certificate.

5.1.3.  Location by Reference

   Where location by reference is provided, the recipient needs to
   deference the LbyR in order to obtain location.  With the
   introduction of location by reference concept two authorization
   models were developed, see [I-D.ietf-geopriv-deref-protocol], namely
   the "Authorization by Possession" and "Authorization via Access
   Control Lists" model.  With the "Authorization by Possession" model
   everyone in possession of the reference is able to obtain the
   corresponding location information.  This might, however, be
   incompatible with other requirements typically imposed by AIPs, such
   as location hiding (see [I-D.ietf-ecrit-location-hiding-req]).  As
   such, the "Authorization via Access Control Lists" model is likely to
   be the preferred model for many AIPs and subject for discussion in
   the subsequent paragraphs.

   Just as with PIDF-LO signing, the operational considerations in
   managing credentials for use in LbyR dereferencing can be
   considerable without the introduction of some kind of hierarchy.  It
   does not seem reasonable for a PSAP to manage client certificates or
   Digest credentials for all the LISes in its coverage area, so as to
   enable it to successfully dereference LbyRs.  In some respects, this
   issue is even more formidable than the validation of signed PIDF-
   LOs.  While PIDF-LO signing credentials are provided to the LIS



H. Tschofenig, et. al         Informational                    [Page 15]


INTERNET-DRAFT      Trustworthy Location Information         24 May 2011


   operator, in the case of de-referencing, the PSAP needs to be obtain
   credentials compatible with the LIS configuration, a potentially more
   complex operational problem.

   As with PIDF-LO signing, the operational issues of LbyR can be
   addressed to some extent by introduction of hierarchy.  Rather than
   requiring the PSAP to obtain credentials for accessing each LIS, the
   local LIS could be required to upload location information to
   location aggregation points who would in turn manage the
   relationships with the PSAP.  This would shift the management burden
   from the PSAPs to the location aggregation points.

5.2.  Application to a Specific Point in Time

   PIDF-LO objects contain a timestamp, which reflects the time at which
   the location was determined.  Even if the PIDF-LO is signed, the
   timestamp only represents an assertion by the LIS, which may or may
   not be trustworthy.  For example, the recipient of the signed PIDF-LO
   may not know whether the LIS supports time synchronization, or
   whether it is possible to reset the LIS clock manually without
   detection.  Even if the timestamp was valid at the time location was
   determined, a time period may elapse between when the PIDF-LO was
   provided and when it is conveyed to the recipient.  Periodically
   refreshing location information to renew the timestamp even though
   the location information itself is unchanged puts additional load on
   LISes.  As a result, recipients need to validate the timestamp in
   order to determine whether it is credible.

5.3.  Linkage to a Specific Endpoint

   As noted in the "HTTP Enabled Location Delivery (HELD)" [RFC5985]
   Section 6.6:

      The LIS MUST NOT include any means of identifying the Device in
      the PIDF-LO unless it is able to verify that the identifier is
      correct and inclusion of identity is expressly permitted by a Rule
      Maker.  Therefore, PIDF parameters that contain identity are
      either omitted or contain unlinked pseudonyms [RFC3693].  A
      unique, unlinked presentity URI SHOULD be generated by the LIS for
      the mandatory presence "entity" attribute of the PIDF document.
      Optional parameters such as the "contact" element and the
      "deviceID" element [RFC4479] are not used.

   Given the restrictions on inclusion of identification information
   within the PIDF-LO, it may not be possible for a recipient to verify
   that the entity on whose behalf location was determined represents
   the same entity conveying location to the recipient.




H. Tschofenig, et. al         Informational                    [Page 16]


INTERNET-DRAFT      Trustworthy Location Information         24 May 2011


   Where "Enhancements for Authenticated Identity Management in the
   Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)" [RFC4474] is used, it is possible
   for the recipient to verify the identity assertion in the From:
   header.  However, if PIDF parameters that contain identity are
   omitted or contain an unlinked pseudonym, then it may not be possible
   for the recipient to verify whether the conveyed location actually
   relates to the entity identified in the From:  header.

   This lack of binding between the entity obtaining the PIDF-LO and the
   entity conveying the PIDF-LO to the recipient enables cut and paste
   attacks which would enable an attacker to assert a bogus location,
   even where both the SIP message and PIDF-LO are signed.  As a result,
   even implementation of both [RFC4474] and location signing does not
   guarantee that location can be tied to a specific endpoint.

6.  Security Considerations

   IP-based emergency services face many security threats.  "Security
   Threats and Requirements for Emergency Call Marking and Mapping"
   [RFC5069] describes attacks on the emergency services system, such as
   attempting to deny system services to all users in a given area, to
   gain fraudulent use of services and to divert emergency calls to non-
   emergency sites.  [RFC5069] also describes attacks against
   individuals, including attempts to prevent an individual from
   receiving aid, or to gain information about an emergency.

   "Threat Analysis of the Geopriv Protocol" [RFC3694] describes threats
   against geographic location privacy, including protocol threats,
   threats resulting from the storage of geographic location data, and
   threats posed by the abuse of information.

   This document focuses on threats deriving from the introduction of
   untrustworthy location information by end hosts, regardless of
   whether this occurs intentionally or unintentionally.

   Although it is important to ensure that location information cannot
   be faked there will be a larger number of GPS-enabled devices out
   there that will find it difficult to utilize any of the security
   mechanisms described in Section 5.  It is unlikely that end users
   will upload their location information for "verification" to a nearby
   location server located in the access network.

   Given the practical and operational limitations in the technology, it
   may be worthwhile to consider whether the goals of trustworthy
   location, as for example defined by NENA i2 [NENA-i2], are
   attainable, or whether lesser goals (such as auditability) should be
   substituted instead.




H. Tschofenig, et. al         Informational                    [Page 17]


INTERNET-DRAFT      Trustworthy Location Information         24 May 2011


   The goal of auditability is to enable an investigator to determine
   the source of a rogue emergency call after the fact.  Since such an
   investigation can rely on audit logs provided under court order, the
   information available to the investigator could be considerably
   greater than that present in messages conveyed in the emergency call.
   As a consequence the emergency caller becomes accountable for his
   actions.  For example, in such a situation, information relating to
   the owner of the unlinked pseudonym could be provided to
   investigators, enabling them to unravel the chain of events that lead
   to the attack.  Auditability is likely to be of most benefits in
   situations where attacks on the emergency services system are likely
   to be relatively infrequent, since the resources required to pursue
   an investigation are likely to be considerable.

   Where attacks are frequent and continuous, a reliance on non-
   automated mechanisms is unlikely to be satisfactory.  As such,
   mechanisms to exchange audit trails information in a standardized
   format between ISPs and PSAPs / VSPs and PSAPs or heuristics to
   distinguish potentially fraudulent emergency calls from real
   emergencies might be valuable for the emergency services community.

7.  IANA Considerations

   This document does not require actions by IANA.

8.  Acknowledgments

   We would like to thank the members of the IETF ECRIT and the IETF
   GEOPRIV working group for their input to the discussions related to
   this topic.  We would also like to thank Andrew Newton, Murugaraj
   Shanmugam, Richard Barnes and Matt Lepinski for their feedback to
   previous versions of this document.  Martin Thomson provided valuable
   input to version -02 of this document.

9.  References

9.1.  Informative References

[GPSCounter]
          Warner, J. S. and R. G. Johnston, "GPS Spoofing
          Countermeasures", Los Alamos research paper LAUR-03-6163,
          December 2003.

[I-D.ietf-geopriv-rfc3825bis]
          Polk, J., Linsner, M., Thomson, M. and B. Aboba, "Dynamic Host
          Configuration Protocol Options for Coordinate-based Location
          Configuration Information", draft-ietf-geopriv-
          rfc3825bis-17.txt (work in progress), February 2011.



H. Tschofenig, et. al         Informational                    [Page 18]


INTERNET-DRAFT      Trustworthy Location Information         24 May 2011


[I-D.ietf-ecrit-location-hiding-req]
          Schulzrinne, H., Liess, L., Tschofenig, H., Stark, B., and A.
          Kuett, "Location Hiding: Problem Statement and Requirements",
          draft-ietf-ecrit-location-hiding-req-04 (work in progress),
          February 2010.

[I-D.ietf-sipcore-location-conveyance]
          Polk, J. and B. Rosen, "Location Conveyance for the Session
          Initiation Protocol", draft-ietf-sipcore-location-
          conveyance-08.txt (work in progress), May 2011.

[I-D.thomson-geopriv-location-dependability]
          Thomson, M. and J. Winterbottom, "Digital Signature Methods
          for Location Dependability", draft-thomson-geopriv-location-
          dependability-07 (work in progress), March 2011.

[I-D.ietf-geopriv-deref-protocol]
          Winterbottom, J., Tschofenig, H., Schulzrinne, H., Thomson,
          M., and M. Dawson, "A Location Dereferencing Protocol Using
          HELD", draft-ietf-geopriv-deref-protocol-02 (work in
          progress), December 2010.

[IEEE-802.11y]
          Information technology - Telecommunications and information
          exchange between systems - Local and metropolitan area
          networks - Specific requirements - Part 11: Wireless LAN
          Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY)
          specifications Amendment 3: 3650-3700 MHz Operation in USA,
          November 2008.

[LLDP-MED]
          "Telecommunications: IP Telephony Infrastructure: Link Layer
          Discovery Protocol for Media Endpoint Devices, ANSI/
          TIA-1057-2006", April 2006.

[NENA-i2] "08-001 NENA Interim VoIP Architecture for Enhanced 9-1-1
          Services (i2)", December 2005.

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
          Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

[RFC3411] Harrington, D., Presuhn, R., and B. Wijnen, "An Architecture
          for Describing Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)
          Management Frameworks", STD 62, RFC 3411, December 2002.

[RFC3693] Cuellar, J., Morris, J., Mulligan, D., Peterson, J., and J.
          Polk, "Geopriv Requirements", RFC 3693, February 2004.




H. Tschofenig, et. al         Informational                    [Page 19]


INTERNET-DRAFT      Trustworthy Location Information         24 May 2011


[RFC3694] Danley, M., Mulligan, D., Morris, J. and J. Peterson, "Threat
          Analysis of the Geopriv Protocol", RFC 3694, February 2004.

[RFC3748] Aboba, B., Blunk, L., Vollbrecht, J., Carlson, J., and H.
          Levkowetz, "Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)", RFC
          3748, June 2004.

[RFC3927] Cheshire, S., Aboba, B., and E. Guttman, "Dynamic
          Configuration of IPv4 Link-Local Addresses", RFC 3927, May
          2005.

[RFC4188] Norseth, K. and E. Bell, "Definitions of Managed Objects for
          Bridges", RFC 4188, September 2005.

[RFC4293] Routhier, S., "Management Information Base for the Internet
          Protocol (IP)", RFC 4293, April 2006.

[RFC4474] Peterson, J. and C. Jennings, "Enhancements for Authenticated
          Identity Management in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
          RFC 4474, August 2006.

[RFC4479] Rosenberg, J., "A Data Model for Presence", RFC 4479, July
          2006.

[RFC4740] Garcia-Martin, M., Belinchon, M., Pallares-Lopez, M., Canales-
          Valenzuela, C., and K. Tammi, "Diameter Session Initiation
          Protocol (SIP) Application", RFC 4740, November 2006.

[RFC4776] Schulzrinne, H., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4
          and DHCPv6) Option for Civic Addresses Configuration
          Information", RFC 4776, November 2006.

[RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
          Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007.

[RFC5012] Schulzrinne, H. and R. Marshall, "Requirements for Emergency
          Context Resolution with Internet Technologies", RFC 5012,
          January 2008.

[RFC5069] Taylor, T., Tschofenig, H., Schulzrinne, H. and M. Shanmugam,
          "Security Threats and Requirements for Emergency Call Marking
          and Mapping", RFC 5069, January 2008.

[RFC5582] Schulzrinne, H., "Location-to-URL Mapping Architecture and
          Framework", RFC 5582, September 2009.

[RFC5985] Barnes, M., "HTTP Enabled Location Delivery (HELD)", RFC 5985,
          September 2010.



H. Tschofenig, et. al         Informational                    [Page 20]


INTERNET-DRAFT      Trustworthy Location Information         24 May 2011


[SA]      "Saudi Arabia - Illegal sale of SIMs blamed for surge in prank
          calls", Arab News, May 4, 2010,
          http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story_s.asp?StoryId=1093319384

[Swatting]
          "Don't Make the Call: The New Phenomenon of 'Swatting',
          Federal Bureau of Investigation, February 4, 2008,
          http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2008/february/swatting020408

[TASMANIA]
          "Emergency services seek SIM-less calls block", ABC News
          Online, August 18, 2006,
          http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200608/s1717956.htm

[UK]      "Rapper makes thousands of prank 999 emergency calls to UK
          police", Digital Journal, June 24, 2010,
          http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/293796?tp=1

Authors' Addresses

   Hannes Tschofenig
   Nokia Siemens Networks
   Linnoitustie 6
   Espoo  02600
   Finland

   Phone:  +358 (50) 4871445
   Email:  Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net
   URI:    http://www.tschofenig.priv.at

   Henning Schulzrinne
   Columbia University
   Department of Computer Science
   450 Computer Science Building, New York, NY  10027
   US

   Phone:  +1 212 939 7004
   Email:  hgs@cs.columbia.edu
   URI:    http://www.cs.columbia.edu

   Bernard Aboba
   Microsoft Corporation
   One Microsoft Way
   Redmond, WA  98052
   US

   Email:  bernard_aboba@hotmail.com




H. Tschofenig, et. al         Informational                    [Page 21]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/