hash stringlengths 32 32 | doc_id stringlengths 5 12 | section stringlengths 5 1.47k | content stringlengths 0 6.67M |
|---|---|---|---|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.13 BSP#13: Authorization Code Injection
| |
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.13.1 Description of best practice
| This best practice addresses potential Authorization Code injection, as described in clause 4.5 of RFC 9700 [2].
Editor’s Note: Further description is FFS
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.13.2 Usage in 5G SBA
| There is no security related usage in 5G SBA.
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.13.3 Assessment
| Editor’s Note: Assessment is FFS
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.14 BSP#14: Access Token Injection
| |
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.14.1 Description of best practice
| This best practice addresses potential Access Token injection, as described in clause 4.6 of RFC 9700 [2].
Editor’s Note: Further description is FFS
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.14.2 Usage in 5G SBA
| There is no security related usage in 5G SBA.
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.14.3 Assessment
| The attack is applicable to Implicit grant type and this grant type is not applied in 5G SBA. Therefore, no further investigation is required.
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.15 BSP#15: Cross-Site Request Forgery
| |
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.15.1 Description of best practice
| This best practice addresses potential Cross-Site Request Forgery, as described in clause 4.7 of RFC 9700 [2].
Editor’s Note: Further description is FFS
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.15.2 Usage in 5G SBA
| There is no security related usage in 5G SBA.
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.15.3 Assessment
| Redirection URI is not applied in 5G SBA. Therefore, no further investigation is required.
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.16 BSP#16: PKCE Downgrade Attack
| |
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.16.1 Description of best practice
| This best practice addresses PKCE downgrade attacks, as described in clause 4.8 of RFC 9700 [2].
Editor’s Note: Further description is FFS
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.16.2 Usage in 5G SBA
| There is security no related usage in 5G SBA.
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.16.3 Assessment
| Editor’s Note: Assessment is FFS
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.17 BSP#17 Preventing Leakage via Metadata
| |
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.17.1 Description of best practice
| This best practice is for preventing leakage via Metadata, as described in clause 4.10.3 of RFC 9700 [2].
Editor’s Note: Further description is FFS
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.17.2 Usage in 5G SBA
| There is no security related usage in 5G SBA.
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.17.3 Assessment
| Editor’s Note: Assessment is FFS
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.18 BSP#18: Open Redirection
| |
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.18.1 Description of best practice
| This best practice addresses open redirection, as described in clause 4.11 of RFC 9700 [2].
Editor’s Note: Further description is FFS
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.18.2 Usage in 5G SBA
| There is no security related usage in 5G SBA.
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.18.3 Assessment
| Editor’s Note: Assessment is FFS
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.19 BSP#19: 307 Redirect
| |
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.19.1 Description of best practice
| This best practice addresses 307 redirect, as described in clause 4.12 of RFC 9700 [2].
Editor’s Note: Further description is FFS
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.19.2 Usage in 5G SBA
| There is no security related usage in 5G SBA.
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.19.3 Assessment
| Editor’s Note: Assessment is FFS
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.20 BSP#20: TLS Terminating Reverse Proxies
| |
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.20.1 Description of best practice
| This best practice is for TLS terminating reverse proxies, as described in clause 4.13 of RFC 9700 [2].
Editor’s Note: Further description is FFS
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.20.2 Usage in 5G SBA
| There is no security related usage in 5G SBA.
Editor’s Note: Further usage analysis is FFS
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.20.3 Assessment
|
Editor’s Note: Assessment is FFS
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.21 BSP#21: Refresh Token Protection
| |
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.21.1 Description of best practice
| This best practice is for Refresh Token Protection, as described in clause 4.14 of RFC 9700 [2].
Editor’s Note: Further description is FFS
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.21.2 Usage in 5G SBA
| There is no security related usage in 5G SBA.
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.21.3 Assessment
| Refresh token are not applied in 5G SBA as the tokens are expected to be short-lived already. Therefore, no further investigation is required.
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.22 BSP#22: Client Impersonating Resource Owner
| |
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.22.1 Description of best practice
| This best practice addresses scenarios of clients impersonating resource owners, as described in clause 4.15 of RFC 9700 [2].
Editor’s Note: Further description is FFS
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.22.2 Usage in 5G SBA
|
Editor’s Note: Analysis on the usage is FFS
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.22.3 Assessment
| This practice is applicable to only implicit or authorization code grant types which is not applied in 5G SBA Therefore, no further investigation is required.
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.23 BSP#23: Clickjacking
| |
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.23.1 Description of best practice
| This best practice addresses potential clickjacking, as described in clause 4.16 of RFC 9700 [2].
Editor’s Note: Further description is FFS
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.23.2 Usage in 5G SBA
| There is no security related usage in 5G SBA.
Editor’s Note: Analysis on the usage is FFS
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.23.3 Assessment
| User interfaces and their usages are not applied in 5G SBA. Therefore, no further investigation is required.
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.24 BSP#24: Attacks on In-Browser Communication Flows
| |
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.24.1 Description of best practice
| This best practice addresses potential attacks on in-browser communication flows, as described in clause 4.17 of RFC 9700 [2].
Editor’s Note: Further description is FFS
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.24.2 Usage in 5G SBA
| There is no security related usage in 5G SBA.
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.24.3 Assessment
| Editor’s Note: Assessment is FFS
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.25 BSP #25: Use Appropriate Algorithms
| |
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.25.1 Description of best practice
| This best practice addresses use of appropriate algorithm as described in clause 3.2 of RFC 8725 [5].
Applications are required to accept strong and up to date cryptographic algorithms for JWTs. If an algorithm is weak or not allowed, the JWT are treated as invalid.
Editor’s Note: Further analysis on the usage is F... |
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.25.2 Usage in 5G SBA
| Reference: 6.3.3 of TS 33.210 [6]
Use of "none" algorithm is not supported as specified in clause 6.3.3 of 33.210 [6] already.
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.25.3 Assessment
|
Editor’s Note: Further assessment is FFS
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.26 BSP #26: Do Not Trust Received Claims
| |
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.26.1 Description of best practice
| This best practice addresses the trust of received claims as specified in clause 3.10 of RFC 8725 [5].
• The "kid" (key ID) header is used by the relying application to perform key lookup. Applications ensures validation of the received KID.
• Similarly, blindly following a "jku" (JWK set URL) or "x5u" (X.509... |
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.26.2 Usage in 5G SBA
| Reference: 13.3.8.2 of TS 33.501[z]
In 5G SBA, specifically with in the use of CCA tokens 13.3.8.2 of TS 33.501[3] where the use of x5u is pertinent, the x5u URL are not public or arbitrary and are assumed to be trusted via operator managed PKI, though the possibility of the CCA token bypass still exist.
Reference:... |
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.26.3 Assessment
| Editor’s Note: Assessment is FFS
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.27 BSP #27: Use Explicit Typing
| |
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.27.1 Description of best practice
| This best practice addresses the Use of Explicit Typing as specified in clause 3.11 of RFC 8725 [5].
Editor’s Note: Further description is FFS
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.27.2 Usage in 5G SBA
|
Editor’s Note: Analysis on the usage is FFS
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.27.3 Assessment
| Editor’s Note: Assessment is FFS
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.28 BSP #28: Validate Issuer and Subject
| |
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.28.1 Description of best practice
| This best practice addresses the Validate Issuer and Subject as specified in clause 3.8 of RFC 8725 [5].
Editor’s Note: Further description is FFS
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.28.2 Usage in 5G SBA
|
Editor’s Note: Analysis on usage is FFS.
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.28.3 Assessment
| Editor’s Note: Assessment is FFS
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.29 BSP #29: Use and Validate Audience
| |
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.29.1 Description of best practice
| This best practice addresses the Use and Validate Audience as specified in clause 3.9 of RFC 8725 [5].
Editor’s Note: Further description is FFS
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.29.2 Usage in 5G SBA
| Reference: 13.4.1.1.2 of TS 33.501 [3]:
In 5G SBA, "aud" claim (e.g NF type of the NF Service Producer) is currently applied.
Editor’s Note : Further analysis on the usage is FFS
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.29.3 Assessment
| Editor’s Note: Assessment is FFS
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.30 BSP#30: Validate Cryptographic Inputs
| |
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.30.1 Description of best practice
| This best practice addresses Validate Cryptographic Inputs, as described in clause 3.4 of RFC 8725 [5]. While using Elliptic Curve cryptography (like ECDH-ES) for key exchange, it’s important to make sure that the input keys or points are valid, meaning they actually belong to the correct curve and aren’t maliciously c... |
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.30.2 Usage in 5G SBA
|
Editor’s Note: Analysis on the usage is FFS
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.30.3 Assessment
| Editor’s Note: Assessment is FFS
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.31 BSP#31: Ensure Cryptographic Keys Have Sufficient Entropy
| |
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.31.1 Description of best practice
| This best practice addresses Ensure Cryptographic Keys Have Sufficient Entropy, as described in clause 3.5 of RFC 8725 [5]. Cryptographic keys must be truly random and strong and not predictable.
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.31.2 Usage in 5G SBA
| The security related usage exists in 5G SBA but it is implementation specific.
Editor’s Note: Analysis on the usage is FFS
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.31.3 Assessment
| Editor’s Note: Assessment is FFS
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.32 BSP#32: Avoid Compression of Encryption Inputs
| |
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.32.1 Description of best practice
| This best practice addresses Avoid Compression of Encryption Inputs, as described in clause 3.6 of RFC 8725 [5]. Avoid Compression of Encryption Inputs means do not compress data before encrypting it, because compression can create patterns that attackers can exploit to recover secret information from the encrypted dat... |
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.32.2 Usage in 5G SBA
|
Editor’s Note: Analysis on the usage is FFS
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.32.3 Assessment
|
Editor’s Note: Assessment is FFS
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.33 BSP#33: Use Mutually Exclusive Validation Rules for Different Kinds of JWTs
| |
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.33.1 Description of best practice
| This best practice addresses Use Mutually Exclusive Validation Rules for Different Kinds of JWTs, as described in clause 3.12 of RFC 8725 [5].
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.33.2 Usage in 5G SBA
| There is no security related usage in 5G SBA.
Editor’s Note: Analysis on the usage is FFS
|
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 5.33.3 Assessment
| Editor’s Note: Assessment is FFS
5.X BSP#X: <Title>
5.X.1 Description of best practice
Editor’s Note: This clause identifies and documents the target measure/practice and includes the precise reference from RFC 9700 and RFC 8725. The intention is not to copy content but a condense summary of the exact practice/mea... |
254f23373f86c36e3e0d9caffefce736 | 33.755 | 6 Conclusions
| Editor’s Note: This clause provides a conclusion for relevant assessment results. Whether the best practice is relevant in 5G and whether it has been applied? Statement on what to do with relevant best practices that are not applied in 5G?
Editor’s Note: Provide a statement on whether future steps are envisioned.
An... |
23ce66f9e0712435a22db29d79f5bf31 | 33.768 | 1 Scope
| The scope of this document is to study the security aspects of the solutions provided in TR 29.867 [2].
NOTE 1: The potential solutions are assumed to not weaken the IMS security.
NOTE 2: It is assumed that the same PLMN has control of both the IMS system and 5GC.
|
23ce66f9e0712435a22db29d79f5bf31 | 33.768 | 2 References
| The following documents contain provisions which, through reference in this text, constitute provisions of the present document.
- References are either specific (identified by date of publication, edition number, version number, etc.) or non‑specific.
- For a specific reference, subsequent revisions do not apply.
-... |
23ce66f9e0712435a22db29d79f5bf31 | 33.768 | 3 Definitions of terms, symbols and abbreviations
| |
23ce66f9e0712435a22db29d79f5bf31 | 33.768 | 3.1 Terms
| For the purposes of the present document, the terms given in TR 21.905 [1] and the following apply. A term defined in the present document takes precedence over the definition of the same term, if any, in TR 21.905 [1].
example: text used to clarify abstract rules by applying them literally.
|
23ce66f9e0712435a22db29d79f5bf31 | 33.768 | 3.2 Symbols
| For the purposes of the present document, the following symbols apply:
<symbol> <Explanation>
|
23ce66f9e0712435a22db29d79f5bf31 | 33.768 | 3.3 Abbreviations
| For the purposes of the present document, the abbreviations given in TR 21.905 [1] and the following apply. An abbreviation defined in the present document takes precedence over the definition of the same abbreviation, if any, in TR 21.905 [1].
<ABBREVIATION> <Expansion>
|
23ce66f9e0712435a22db29d79f5bf31 | 33.768 | 4 Overview
| Editor’s Note: This clause includes the overview applicable for the study.
|
23ce66f9e0712435a22db29d79f5bf31 | 33.768 | 5 Key issues
| Editor’s Note: This clause contains all the key issues identified during the study.
5.X Key Issue #X: <Key Issue Name>
5.X.1 Key issue details
5.X.2 Security threats
5.X.3 Potential security requirements
|
23ce66f9e0712435a22db29d79f5bf31 | 33.768 | 6 Solutions
| Editor’s Note: This clause contains the proposed solutions addressing the identified key issues.
|
23ce66f9e0712435a22db29d79f5bf31 | 33.768 | 6.1 Mapping of solutions to key issues
| Editor's Note: This clause contains a table mapping between key issues and solutions.
Table 6.1-1: Mapping of solutions to key issues
Solutions
KI#X
KI#Y
KI#Z
6.Y Solution #Y: <Solution Name>
6.Y.1 Introduction
Editor’s Note: Each solution should list the key issues being addressed.
6.Y.2 Solution d... |
23ce66f9e0712435a22db29d79f5bf31 | 33.768 | 7 Conclusions
| Editor’s Note: This clause contains the agreed conclusions that will form the basis for any normative work.
Annex <X>: Change history
Change history
Date
Meeting
TDoc
CR
Rev
Cat
Subject/Comment
New version
2025-10
SA3#124
S3-253609
Skeleton for TR 33.768
0.0.0
2025-10
SA3#124
S3-253724
... |
d20b4aa3005bbe8602412746b3658946 | 33.703 | 1 Scope
| The present document studies the complexities involved with the introduction of standalone and/or hybrid Post Quantum Cryptography (PQC) algorithms in existing security protocols used by 5G specifications. These security protocols and their associated algorithms have been listed in TR 33.938 [2] “3GPP Cryptographic Inv... |
d20b4aa3005bbe8602412746b3658946 | 33.703 | 2 References
| The following documents contain provisions which, through reference in this text, constitute provisions of the present document.
- References are either specific (identified by date of publication, edition number, version number, etc.) or non‑specific.
- For a specific reference, subsequent revisions do not apply.
-... |
d20b4aa3005bbe8602412746b3658946 | 33.703 | 3 Definitions of terms, symbols and abbreviations
| |
d20b4aa3005bbe8602412746b3658946 | 33.703 | 3.1 Terms
| For the purposes of the present document, the terms given in TR 21.905 [1] and the following apply. A term defined in the present document takes precedence over the definition of the same term, if any, in TR 21.905 [1].
example: text used to clarify abstract rules by applying them literally.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.