70 likes | 172 Vues
This document evaluates the session protocol needs and defines the transition from ROSE to FPT with IP stack or ROSE with IP stack. It covers TIPHON-specific data, interception flows, and real-time delivery requirements. Security measures include protection from DNS attacks and identification safeguards. FTP and ROSE comparisons are discussed with a focus on LEA preferences and application implications. The standardisation of protocols and existing standards in products is emphasized.
E N D
TIPHONLI implications Scott Cadzow
TIPHON work • Actions from TC SEC LI • Evaluate the need for a session protocol • Define transition from ROSE to either FPT with IP stack, or ROSE with IP stack. • Internal actions • Define TIPHON specific data in ASN.1 • Define abstract interception flows to MF
LI Requirement • On TIPHON • No local storage of Intercept records (HI2) and traffic (HI3) • Real time delivery of Intercept records and traffic • On LEA • Always on intercept record and traffic acceptance
Further requirements • Standardisation • Existing standards available in existing products • Security • Protection from DNS attack on public interface • Trusted staff in the TIPHON operator environment • Target shall not be identifiable by other (traffic) analysis
FTP versus ROSE • FTP is in favour with LEAs • Favour is accorded by economics • Simple (quick) to implement • ROSE supported by application builders • An application of a Remote Procedure Call (RPC) • Abstract specification • Requires application to make sense of the data
LI in TIPHON • Known target standard = ES 201 671 • Abstract data already described • GSM, TETRA and ES 201 671 in ASN.1 • Target discovery to be described • Identify signalling mapping to record type • BEGIN, END, CONTINUE