Tdoc List
2019-10-22 10:41
TDoc | Title | Source | Type | For | Agenda | Avail | Treated | Decision | Wdrn | Replaced-by | Replaces |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S3‑193300 | Agenda | WG Chair | agenda |
2Approval of Agenda and Meeting Objectives
| Yes |
Yes
| revised | No | S3‑193681 | ||
S3‑193301 | TR 33.813 - update for solution #11 | InterDigital Communications | pCR | Approval |
5.6.2Study (FS_eNS_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193302 | TR 33.819 update of DH based solution for CAG ID privacy | InterDigital Communications | pCR | Approval |
5.10.2Study (FS_Vertical_LAN_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193303 | TR 33.819 update of Hash based solution for CAG ID privacy | InterDigital Communications | pCR | Approval |
5.10.2Study (FS_Vertical_LAN_SEC)
| Yes |
YesHuawei: what is sufficient length ofCAG ID, where is it defined
IDCC: this is a suggested length
Huawei: length of CAG needsd to be defined ed note.
Nokia: fine as part of solution, because it says e.g.
QC: text against FBS is not making claims against active attacks.
IDCC: correct
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193304 | 33.836 - solution #1 update | InterDigital Communications | pCR | Approval |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193305 | TR 33.836 - update for solution #2 | InterDigital Communications | pCR | Approval |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
YesLG: this doesn't adhere to SA2 TS, There only initiating UE sends TCR, here the responding also sends TCR
QC: agree, but part of the solution, so put this into the evaluation. Add ed note
don't add note
| revised | No | S3‑193797 | |
S3‑193306 | TR 33.836 - solution #3 update | InterDigital Communications | pCR | Approval |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193307 | TR 33.836 solution #4 update | InterDigital Communications | pCR | Approval |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193308 | TR 33.819 review and comparative evaluation of solution for CAG ID privacy | InterDigital Communications | pCR | Approval |
5.10.2Study (FS_Vertical_LAN_SEC)
| Yes |
Yesneed to wait for SA2
IDCC: propose to note all of the CAG conclusions.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193309 | TR 33.813 - update for the evaluation for solution #11 | InterDigital Communications | pCR | Approval |
5.6.2Study (FS_eNS_SEC)
| Yes |
YesNokia: 3396 is related
together with 3396
Nokia: remove word fully from evaluation in 309
QC: solution doesn't work well, so discuss this offline.
| revised | No | S3‑193823 | |
S3‑193310 | TR 33.819 evaluation of DH based solution for CAG ID privacy | InterDigital Communications | pCR | Approval |
5.10.2Study (FS_Vertical_LAN_SEC)
| Yes |
YesQC: after a FBS runs DH, it can run passive attacks,
IDCC that was not claimed
E//: mention explicitly that it doesn't address active attacks
QC: move that to first line
IDCC: requirements don't say both
QC: remove fully, add "against passive attacks..." to first sentence, combining last and first sentence
agreed on last QC comment
| revised | No | S3‑193826 | |
S3‑193311 | TR 33.819 evaluation of Hash based solution for CAG ID privacy | InterDigital Communications | pCR | Approval |
5.10.2Study (FS_Vertical_LAN_SEC)
| Yes |
YesQC: does this against a passive attack from a UE in the same CAG
IDCC: insider attack
QC: not insider, include comment from 310
DCM: this solution does not protect against passive attacks by members of the CAG
QC changes and DCM comment agreed
| revised | No | S3‑193827 | |
S3‑193312 | 33.836 evaluation for the Solution #1 | InterDigital Communications | pCR | Approval |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
YesQC: SA2 link layer is two roundtrip, this is 3 roundtrips, analysis needs to be done
IDCC: ed note how to address mismatch with SA?2
QC: ed note: securtiy comparison with SA2 solution for link layer update is FFS
DCM: remove and/or
ed note and and/or
| revised | No | S3‑193795 | |
S3‑193313 | Resolving EN in TR33.855 6.18 N9 NDS/IP | Juniper Networks, NTT DoCoMo, Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.1.2Study (FS_SBA-Sec)
| Yes |
YesHuawei: Mentions that network slice can have different security requirements - this is not clear
Orange: Different security can be applied to different slices
DCM: A better formulation is needed
Juniper: Trying to resolve EN and it needs to be decided if some normative work needed.
| revised | No | S3‑193728 | |
S3‑193314 | TR 33.836 - evaluation for the solution #2 | InterDigital Communications | pCR | Approval |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
YesQC: ed note, similar to other IDCC contribition. "Justification for the difference to SA2 call flow is FFS"
QC: remove last sentence
ed note, remove last sentence
| revised | No | S3‑193798 | |
S3‑193315 | TR 33.836 - evaluation for the solution #3 | InterDigital Communications | pCR | Approval |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193316 | TR 33.836 evaluation of the solution #4 | InterDigital Communications | pCR | Approval |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
YesQC: this requires partial ciphering to direct SMC command, adds complexity: add editors note: compleity of adding partial ciphering to the direct security mode command compared to the benefit of the simultaneous updates is FFS.
Ed note
| revised | No | S3‑193796 | |
S3‑193317 | TR 33.813 review and comparative evaluation of solution for NSSAI privacy | InterDigital Communications | pCR | Approval |
5.6.2Study (FS_eNS_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193318 | FS_SIV TR 33.848 v030c | BT plc | pCR | Agreement |
5.13Study on Security Impacts of Virtualisation (FS_SIV)
| Yes |
YesThales: Why is there a reference to SCASS
BT: Could be done by reference to specs inside 3GPP, specs outside 3GPP or by restricting the text cases
Thales: But where are the solutions?
BT: It is contribution driven and up to people to bring the solution for issue. Where it says 'inside SCASS' , it means that a text case in 3GPP is proposed outcome.
Thales: Concerned about the terms used - DSE
DCM: Propose reverting DSE chnage in 5.8.1 and adding an EN on generalising TPM/HSM and remove definition of DSE
| revised | No | S3‑193749 | |
S3‑193319 | 33:846: mitigation against linkability attack | THALES | pCR | Approval |
5.14Study on authentication enhancements in 5GS (FS_AUTH_ENH)
| Yes |
YesBT: does this need a new USIM, or can this be done with OTA
Thales: not OTA
BT: document that this means change of USIM
Orange: this solution requires change of the USIM
Nokia: step 5, and step 7 are authentication procedures, how is the USIM to know that ti needs to resynch failure
Thales: in case synch error, it will respond with a random, then the network wills start resynch procedure, USIM will know that is required
Nokia: there may be new threats
Thales: ok to add ed note
Nokia: ed note threat analysis for authentication resynch will need to be done.
Huawei: step 3 need a unified failure cause
Thales: UICC will see different causes, but for network and ME it will not be detected
Huawei: ed note: whether unified failure cause is FFS
QC: if SUPI is known, this doesn't work against active attack. now this requires two passes for sync, after 3 failures the UE will block the network
sentence in evaluation, ed note on threat, on unified failure cause, offline for QC attack
| revised | No | S3‑193811 | |
S3‑193320 | Proposal to solve ED notes in solution#4: Zero-overhead user plane integrity protection on the link layer | Philips International B.V. | pCR | Approval |
5.12Study on User Plane Integrity Protection (FS_UP_IP_Sec)
| Yes |
YesNok and DCM: Not clear what truncated encryption means - explanation would be good in the text
Nok: First EN needs to be retained
Philips: Explained in new text
DCM: Replace EN1 as there is an impact by replacing hardware CRC with cryptgraphic function
CMCC: Add sentence on the length of MAC compared to 32 bits
QC: Security implications of just protecting the CRC needs to be further study needed
| revised | No | S3‑193691 | |
S3‑193321 | Adding evaluation to solution #7 | Huawei, HiSilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193322 | Editorial corrections for TR 33.819 | Huawei, HiSilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.10.2Study (FS_Vertical_LAN_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193323 | Conclsion to Key Issue #7 | Huawei, HiSilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193324 | New Key Issue on Security of broadcast eV2X messages over PC5 | Huawei, HiSilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
YesE//: don't support this key issue
LG: also doesn'T support this
DCM: give reasoning, ok with no requirement
BT: problem with not including it, integrity is important
QC: on unicast the bearer may also be malicious
QC: inlcude rationale from discussion document in conclusion
offline whether required,
| revised | No | S3‑193806 | |
S3‑193325 | Evaluation of solutions addressing Key Issue #6.2 | Huawei, HiSilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.10.2Study (FS_Vertical_LAN_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193326 | Editorial corrections for eV2X TR 33.836 | Huawei, HiSilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
YesNokia: sentence on broadcast is not editorial
QC: agree to this sentence
no changes
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193327 | New solution to minimize the impact on the application layer communication | Huawei, HiSilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
YesE//: how does it work while maintaining unicast connections
Huawei: see figure
no changes
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193328 | TR 33.848 Scope Update | BT plc | pCR | Agreement |
5.13Study on Security Impacts of Virtualisation (FS_SIV)
| Yes |
YesDCM: Expand CNI abbreviation
| revised | No | S3‑193751 | |
S3‑193329 | Resolve EN on signaling details of how UE hands over to FBS | Huawei, HiSilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
YesNokia: if FBS operates in same frequency, will it detect it?
Huawei: this is not about solution, this is only background information
Nokia: ok
E//: disagree with solution, but this is ok.
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193330 | Resolve second and third EN in Solution #6 | Huawei, HiSilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
YesNokia: there is ed note on RAN2 feedback,
Huawei: the LS was sent sone time ago
Nokia: keep ed note until response is there.
QC: same comment
bring back 2nd ed note
| revised | No | S3‑193757 | |
S3‑193331 | Solution#4: resolving EN network verification of hashes of MIB/SIBs | Huawei, HiSilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
YesQC: is thisi new solution?
Huawei: existing,
QC: sounds like different solution
Huawei: not different, using OAM for sending additional information
QC: not additional information
Huawei: resolves ed notes
E//: support this.
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193332 | Solution#4: Resolving EN Impact on UE power consumption | Huawei, HiSilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
YesQC: disagree, not only creating hash, wait for RAN reply
E//: supoprt this contribution
QC: evaluation not true, impact on poser consumption may be larger.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193333 | Solution #4: Details on hash algorithm used for MIB/SIB hashes. | Huawei, HiSilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
Yes
| revised | No | S3‑193679 | |
S3‑193334 | Address EN in solution #1 | Huawei, HiSilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193335 | Enabling UE to detect FBS | Huawei, HiSilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
YesE//: several problems: during handover, measurement is fast, but now SIB information needs to be collected, so introduces delay for handover, no problems are in connected mode, because no handover to FBS.
Huawei: this verification is not before handover, this is after
E//: how do you verify
Huawei: collection is in preparation phase
E//: still disagree.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193336 | preventing UE from reselecting to FBS | Huawei, HiSilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
YesE//: no actions should be standarduzed, detection may not be 100% accurate, blacklisting creates new DoS, problems are with idle mode, not connected Ues.
Huawei: remove actions or ed note
E/: remove blacklisting
QC: add several ed notes:
Nokia: blacklisting in central, so nothing is left over
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193337 | Avoiding UE from Suffering More MitM Attacks by Handover | Huawei, HiSilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
YesE//: does this use blacklisting?
Huawei: yes, gNB collects and then informs UE
Nokia: how does network know the neighbors
Huawei: is that the assumption
QC: so what is different from normal handover?
Huawei: nothing
Nokia: what to do about man in the middle.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193338 | Evaluation of solution #6 | Huawei, HiSilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
YesE//: add that this solution does not mitigate against radio repeater attacks
QC: agree with E//
add sentence
QC add ed note further evaluation is ffs based on RAN2 feedback
DCM: repeater is not only an attack., there are also operator deployed repeaters
Nokia: but there could be a malicious repeater
QC: not may require signalling overhead, make "requires".
| revised | No | S3‑193759 | |
S3‑193339 | Conclustion for Key issue #3 | Huawei, HiSilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193340 | Update of key issue #6 | KPN | pCR | Approval |
5.2.2Study (FS_AKMA)
| Yes |
YesEri: Similar to the previous document - application can derive the keys
QC: Add a EN to capture the issue on whether the requirement can be left to application.
| revised | No | S3‑193766 | |
S3‑193341 | Conclusion to Key Issue #4 | KPN | pCR | Approval |
5.3.2Study (FS_CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
YesSupport: cosigners
Object: KPN, Huawei
DCM: same as KPN conclusion, except for SA2 part, send LS to SA2 instead.
Approved as LS has been sent.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193342 | Solution for privacy of link layer IDs in broadcast and groupcast | Qualcomm Incorporated | pCR | Approval |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193343 | Conclusion on privacy for groupcast and broadcast | Qualcomm Incorporated | pCR | Approval |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
YesQC update to point to 522 soltuion
Huawei: is privacy only based on source id only, make this specific
add "for source layer 2 id"
| revised | No | S3‑193803 | |
S3‑193344 | Proposed conclusion of security for groupcast | Qualcomm Incorporated | pCR | Approval |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
YesHuawei: if there is a key issue groupcast, then there should also be a key issue for broadcast
Lenovo: agree for broadcast, disagree with groupcast conclusion
QC: who supports work on groupcast.
Supporting no normative work for groupcast: QC, ZTE, LG, Huawei; objecting, Lenovo, IDCC
conclusion only about broadcast, include rationale
| revised | No | S3‑193805 | |
S3‑193345 | Providing some analysis to solution #9 in TR 33.836 | Qualcomm Incorporated | pCR | Approval |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
YesIntel: disagree with all of the evaluation: no regulatory requirements, credential provsioning KMS is responsible, there are options available, what has privacy to do with credentials, can be achieved by changing session keys, credentials are never exposed.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193346 | Providing some analysis to solution #8 in TR 33.836 | Qualcomm Incorporated | pCR | Approval |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
YesIntel: new key issue related to this
DCM: ed note (conditional: on accepting new key issue) evaluation regarding new key issue is FFS
IDCC: simiultaneous changes are needed, so this is against SA2
QC: this can only happen when you change the certificate when trying to change ID, so disagree with this statement
IDCC: editors note:conformance to SA2 TS23.287 clause 5.6.1.1 is FFS
LG: no relationship. QC is correct
IDCC: shouldn't be decoupled
DCM add ed note,
QC: privacy on two levels, application and on link. try to work offline on this as alternative to ed note
conditional ed note, resolution or ed note, clause heading 6.8.3
conditional ed note not necessary based on outcome of 520
| revised | No | S3‑193799 | |
S3‑193347 | Resolving the editors note on RRC security establishment in solution #8 | Qualcomm Incorporated | pCR | Approval |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
YesIDCC: Why does PC5 use the same algorithms
QC: because it has the same termination point
IDCC: make this clear
DCM: make note to shall
QC: ok
IDCC want reasoning
QC: part of evaluation
IDCC: keep as is.
No changes
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193348 | Resolving the editors note on operator knowledge of keys in solution #8 | Qualcomm Incorporated | pCR | Approval |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
YesIntel: doesn't resolve teh issue
QC: if no confidentiality is provided, then LI is solved.
No changes
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193349 | Proposed solution for protecting the V2X PC5 traffic at the PDCP | Qualcomm Incorporated | pCR | Approval |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
YesLG: this is unicast, so is key ID required?
QC: in Uu, handover is used, do break then make, here you can whange key in active communication
no changes
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193350 | Discussion for a response LS on NR V2X Security for user plane data and PDCP SN size | Qualcomm Incorporated | discussion | Endorsement |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193351 | Solution for the activation of user plane security in NR PC5 unicast | Qualcomm Incorporated | pCR | Approval |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
YesHuawei: reuse activation, why define a different policy for UP ini PC5?
QC: add editor's note: details on the user plane activation policy is FFS
ed note
| revised | No | S3‑193800 | |
S3‑193352 | Discussion on protection of messages for V2X PC5 unicast | Qualcomm Incorporated | discussion | Endorsement |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
YesIDCC: support LS
QC one or two LSs.
Send LS based on the discussion paper
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193353 | Some corrections/clarification for non-public networks annex | Qualcomm Incorporated | draftCR | Endorsement |
5.10.1Work Item (Vertical_LAN_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| merged | No | S3‑193705 | |
S3‑193354 | Resolving editors note on refreshing the parameter in solution #10 | Qualcomm Incorporated | pCR | Approval |
5.6.2Study (FS_eNS_SEC)
| Yes |
YesNokia: feels ed note is only partly addressed, but ok
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193355 | Resolving editors note on relationship between S-NSSAI and the S-NSSAI identifiers in solution #10 | Qualcomm Incorporated | pCR | Approval |
5.6.2Study (FS_eNS_SEC)
| Yes |
YesIDCC: this is beoming more confusing, encrypted identifier is pseudonym that is shorter, so more elaboration on what is the pseudonym, ed note relationship between S-NSSAI and S-NSSAI identifier needs elaboration
E//: are S-NSSAI idnetifier encrypted?
QC: yes, that is what is described
add ed note.
| revised | No | S3‑193821 | |
S3‑193356 | Using MACS to provide freshness for the protection of SQN during a re-synchronisation procedure in AKA | Qualcomm Incorporated | pCR | Approval |
5.14Study on authentication enhancements in 5GS (FS_AUTH_ENH)
| Yes |
YesOrange: add to evaluation that USIM needs to be changed, no impact of visited network
Huawei:have to assume that MAC-S is trusted?
QC: just one extra input to AK
Thales: think solution is correct
ZTE: there may be problem of performance
Orange: no issue
Nokia: how feasible is algorithm update over OTA
Orange: added this sentence in eval
eval: this solution requires changing the USIM
| revised | No | S3‑193812 | S3‑192921 |
S3‑193357 | F1 security establishment | Qualcomm Incorporated | pCR | Approval |
5.15.2Study (FS_NR_IAB_Sec)
| Yes |
YesNokia: DU setup is basically is a wireline interface. Defined solution may not scale
DCM: VPN is used in many corporates at scale
QC: this is a solution proposal, so what is the problem
Huawei: ed note what is the difference between wireless and wireline.
Nokia: solution can go in, but need to capture in evaluation
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193358 | Evaluation on Solution #3.1: F1 security context establishment | Qualcomm Incorporated, Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.15.2Study (FS_NR_IAB_Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193359 | Conclusion on KI #4.1: F1 interface security | Qualcomm Incorporated, Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.15.2Study (FS_NR_IAB_Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| merged | No | S3‑193792 | |
S3‑193360 | Evaluation of the shared key based MIB/SIB protection solution | Qualcomm Incorporated | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
YesApple: only agree with first two bullets
Huawei: support QC, ed note: how to protect MIB and SIB if AS security is not active is FFS
E//: not accept first statement, ecause requirement says should detect in all states
QC: first two paragraphs need to be read together
E//: disagree with last para
QC: add that verifiaction of hash by gNB?
Add ed note, remove last two paragraphs.
| revised | No | S3‑193754 | S3‑192938 |
S3‑193361 | Shared key based MIB/SIBs integrity information provided by gNB | Qualcomm Incorporated | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
YesSamsung: what happens if message 8 is not received, what is UE behaviour?
QC: not described, UE knows this.
Samsung how does Ue know that?
QC: UE identifies mismatch, in step 7, then if message 8 does not arrive,
Samsung: without message 8, what does the UE do? incomplete solution
QC add ed note: UE behaviour when message 8 is not received is FFS
E//: disagree, doesn't cover UE in idle mode.
Huawei: support QC
Apple: note, because similar solution exists already
QC: differnt place of verification
| noted | No | S3‑192936 | |
S3‑193362 | Evaluation against MitM false base station attacks | Qualcomm Incorporated | other | Endorsement |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
YesDCM: is there a clear definition of counts as MitM attack
QC: stupid relay is not a relay, it s described in key issue 7
Apple: no requirements in key issue 7
| noted | No | S3‑192937 | |
S3‑193363 | Evaluation on UE behavior on detection of false signature | Qualcomm Incorporated | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
YesE//: not agreeing with bit flip attack. In second paragraph, alter attack is in controlled environment, using different PCI and frequency, with signature that could be avoided.
Apple: first para should be moved into ky issue, second para is DoS, true for all MACs, disagree with third and fourth para as well
QC: not move to key issue description.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193364 | Evaluation on signing key management | Qualcomm Incorporated | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
YesHuawei: stronly support last paragraph, because when moving to new TA, the UE can suffer from MiTM attack.
E//: UE could get new keys before moving to new TA
Samsung: disagree with second evaluation, first also doesn't hold
Apple: also similar to Samsung
QC: agree that all signing solutions will not be pursued further, as no evaluations are going in.
Apple: problems where of technical nature.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193365 | Evaluation on Enriched MR | Qualcomm Incorporated | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
YesHuawei: disagree with evaluation, too subjective, limit to postmortem is not true,
E//: disagree to many paragraphs, some ok with changes
QC: discuss this offline.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193366 | Key Issue on UE capability protection for CP optimization only CIoT UE | Qualcomm Incorporated | pCR | Approval |
5.3.2Study (FS_CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
Yes
| merged | No | S3‑193704 | |
S3‑193367 | LS on GUTI re-allocation | Qualcomm Incorporated | LS out | Discussion |
5.3.2Study (FS_CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
YesNokia: Agree an important principle to maintain 5G-GUTI re-allocation
Eri: Agree but want to delay response as incoming LS is out of scope
There was general agreement on the principle that GUTI re-allocation should be supported.
Chair: There will be an LS out of the meeting but will need discussion on the process to follow due to original LS not being part of meeting
Result of discussion: send LS as new LS, not as reply.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193368 | Reply LS on SUCI computation from an NSI | Qualcomm Incorporated | LS out | Approval |
5.10.1Work Item (Vertical_LAN_SEC)
| Yes |
YesDCM doesn't answer the question
QC: there are features that don't work
Thales: disagree with QC, currently nothing prevents the two identities
Orange: agree with LS, but need to add whether there are security concerns, Orange doesn't see any, respond from next meeting, but should be only one key.
Nokia: two identifiers for UE is ok?
Orange: yes, but need more time to study.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193369 | Proposed conclusion for 5G RAN connected to 5GC | Qualcomm Incorporated | pCR | Approval |
5.12Study on User Plane Integrity Protection (FS_UP_IP_Sec)
| Yes |
YesHuawei: Concern that there is a EN in solution so remove reference
QC: Ok
CMCC: Concern about the performance issues, e.g. some bearers may not require UP IP as performance is more important
QC: Proposal is as for solution 2 that UP IP is optional to use
CMCC: Propose to add a sentence on the performance
QC: Does this mean re-evaulation of existing Rel-15
Apple: Propose to remove the note - this was agreed.
DCM: Concerned about the impact on ng-eNB on this conclusion
| revised | No | S3‑193698 | |
S3‑193370 | Security aspects of RLOS | Qualcomm Incorporated | draftCR | Endorsement |
6Any Other Business
| Yes |
YesQC: should be for information
DCM: out of scope
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193371 | TR 33.848 Security Requirements for Key Issue 17 (resubmission of S3-192559) | NCSC | pCR | Approval |
5.13Study on Security Impacts of Virtualisation (FS_SIV)
| Yes |
Yes
| merged | No | S3‑193741 | |
S3‑193372 | TR 33.848 Security Threats and Requirements for Key Issue 16 (resubmission of S3-192558) | NCSC | pCR | Approval |
5.13Study on Security Impacts of Virtualisation (FS_SIV)
| Yes |
Yes
| revised | No | S3‑193742 | |
S3‑193373 | TR 33.848: Security Requirements for Key Issue 18 (resubmission of S3-192560) | NCSC | pCR | Approval |
5.13Study on Security Impacts of Virtualisation (FS_SIV)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193374 | TR 33.848 Security Requirements for Key Issue 19 (resubmission of S3-192561) | NCSC | pCR | Approval |
5.13Study on Security Impacts of Virtualisation (FS_SIV)
| Yes |
Yes
| revised | No | S3‑193773 | |
S3‑193375 | TR 33.848 Security Threats and Requirements for Key Issue 21 (resubmission of S3-192562) | NCSC | pCR | Approval |
5.13Study on Security Impacts of Virtualisation (FS_SIV)
| Yes |
Yes
| merged | No | S3‑193775 | |
S3‑193376 | TR 33.848 Annex Virtualisation Security Questions (resubmission of S3-193089) | NCSC | pCR | Approval |
5.13Study on Security Impacts of Virtualisation (FS_SIV)
| Yes |
YesThales. Should not be a guideline that SA3 provides. Should be out of scope
DCM: make this in format of evidence to a requirement
BT: put this into document
Orange: some are SCAS related, others are more NESAS related, prefer not to put this into TC cyber
DCM: prefer to keep this here
Orange: should ask GSMA if they will deal with virtualization, send LS
Thales: ok to have this content, but this informative annex is the wrong way
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193377 | Security for Wireline access to 5G - General | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | draftCR | Endorsement |
5.1.1Work Item (SBA_Sec)
| No |
Yes
| withdrawn | Yes | ||
S3‑193378 | Authentication for 5G-RG | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | draftCR | Endorsement |
5.1.1Work Item (SBA_Sec)
| No |
Yes
| withdrawn | Yes | ||
S3‑193379 | Security for Wireline access to 5G - General | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | draftCR | Endorsement |
5.4Security of the Wireless and Wireline Convergence for the 5G system architecture (5WWC_SEC)
| Yes |
YesOrange: no roaming, put in as Note.
BT: GW owner and connected operator are same, for R17 something more practical is required.
Orange: use note from TR, which is useful
Nokia: should be covered in SA2 architecture
Huawei: sentence is needed here.
QC: Last sentence: remove "potential"
Hauwei: remove last paragraph
E//: remove reference to 33.501
E//: clarify FN-RG in third paragraph
QC: reference in first paragraph is xx, add TS 23.whatever.
| revised | No | S3‑193686 | |
S3‑193380 | Authentication for 5G-RG | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | draftCR | Endorsement |
5.4Security of the Wireless and Wireline Convergence for the 5G system architecture (5WWC_SEC)
| Yes |
YesThales: add concealing the SUPI.
| merged | No | S3‑193687 | |
S3‑193381 | Authentication for FN-RG | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | draftCR | Endorsement |
5.4Security of the Wireless and Wireline Convergence for the 5G system architecture (5WWC_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| merged | No | S3‑193688 | |
S3‑193382 | Authentication for the UE behind the RG | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | draftCR | Endorsement |
5.4Security of the Wireless and Wireline Convergence for the 5G system architecture (5WWC_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193383 | Security of the interface between W-5GAN and 5GC | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | draftCR | Endorsement |
5.4Security of the Wireless and Wireline Convergence for the 5G system architecture (5WWC_SEC)
| Yes |
YesEri: list formatting
Eri: clarify of the N2 interface.
| revised | No | S3‑193689 | |
S3‑193384 | Security for trusted non-3GPP access General | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | draftCR | Endorsement |
5.4Security of the Wireless and Wireline Convergence for the 5G system architecture (5WWC_SEC)
| Yes |
YesLenovo: overlaps with 3550, merge general clause
QC: clarify that sentence 2 is about EAP 5G
Orange: nothing on 5G AKA in Lenovo contribution.
E//: last paragraph of Nokia is not needed, it is a comparison. Call flow is copied, so put ed note on step 8 that this needs more work (authentication) ed note: stating details of key hierarchy are FFS.
Huawei: second ed note not needed now.
| merged | No | S3‑193685 | |
S3‑193385 | Security procedure for trusted non-3GPP access | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | draftCR | Endorsement |
5.4Security of the Wireless and Wireline Convergence for the 5G system architecture (5WWC_SEC)
| Yes |
YesOrange: remove text from living document, remove stuff from Living document, iti is pCR to living document.
| merged | No | S3‑193685 | |
S3‑193386 | Update to 5G_eSBA WID | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | draftCR | Endorsement |
5.1.1Work Item (SBA_Sec)
| Yes |
YesThere is a related WID in S3-193672 where there is some discussion on splitting of the work items
Needs to be re-submitted to Reno meeting.
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193387 | Security requirements for SeCoP | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | draftCR | Endorsement |
5.1.1Work Item (SBA_Sec)
| Yes |
YesHuawei: Typo in title of 5.9.2.4 compared to abbreviations
It was agreed to use the same name as SA2 but different abbreviations
Huawei: What internal interface and why is it mentioned
DCM: For service mesh type deployment there will be internal interfaces - could EN be made into normative text.
Eri: Prefer to remove EN or re-word it.
DCM: Leave EN in now and deal with it at the next meeting
Eri: have other comments on the NOTE.
| revised | No | S3‑193719 | |
S3‑193388 | Authentication and authorization between SeCoP and network functions | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | draftCR | Endorsement |
5.1.1Work Item (SBA_Sec)
| Yes |
YesEri: last paragraph could be shortened
DCM: Concerned that it sounds like an option in that case
Huawei: There is no authorisation aspects in clause yet an EN should capture this
| revised | No | S3‑193721 | |
S3‑193389 | Authentication and authorization between SeCoPs | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | draftCR | Endorsement |
5.1.1Work Item (SBA_Sec)
| Yes |
YesEri: formating of bullets
Huawei: Authorisation EN is needed
| revised | No | S3‑193722 | |
S3‑193390 | Hash based UE capability protection for CP optimization only CIoT UE | Qualcomm Incorporated | pCR | Approval |
5.3.2Study (FS_CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193391 | AMF verification of the UE radio capabilities for CP optimization only CIoT UE | Qualcomm Incorporated | pCR | Approval |
5.3.2Study (FS_CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193392 | CIoT_ Modifications to draft CR | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell, Ericsson | other | Approval |
5.3.1Work Item (CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
YesHuawei: will provide definition next time
Nokia: slightly different title in 6.x.1
DCM: give different title to 6.x.1.
| revised | No | S3‑193717 | |
S3‑193393 | Proposed Solution for key issue #6 | Qualcomm Incorporated | pCR | Approval |
5.12Study on User Plane Integrity Protection (FS_UP_IP_Sec)
| Yes |
YesHuawei: Why only affects only ng-eNB
QC: Clarify that this is only for 5G core and not EPC - change the title to make this clear
Apple: 2nd paragraph in solution descirprion is not clear
QC: OK to remove that paragraph
| revised | No | S3‑193692 | |
S3‑193394 | draft CR for Security procedures for Network Slices | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | other | Agreement |
5.6.1Work Item (eNS_SEC)
| Yes |
YesBT: is there going to be confusion if there is slice specific secondary authentication
E//: there is no such thing
Huawei: comments on structure and have own proposal, x.x.1 and x.x.2 are confusing, together with 401
discussion captured under 401
| revised | No | S3‑193738 | |
S3‑193395 | eNS_Addition to evaluation of solution 10 | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell, Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.6.2Study (FS_eNS_SEC)
| Yes |
YesQC: don't need to maintain the all this context, only maintain NSSAI identifier to NSSAI mapping, disagree
DCM: state that the NSSAI space is then reduced
IDCC: problem to understand the solution
E//: share Nokias concerns.
| revised | No | S3‑193822 | |
S3‑193396 | eNS_Addition of evaluation to solution 11 | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell, Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.6.2Study (FS_eNS_SEC)
| Yes |
YesIDCC: on ed note: based on existing NGAP procedure, so should be clear enough. No per UE context required in RAN. All other parts of ed note also to be refuted
E//: support Nokia's ed note
Nokia: UE identity in AS layer, how is it learned
IDCC: from S-TMSI
| revised | No | S3‑193824 | |
S3‑193397 | KI#7 Revocation of rejected NSSAI | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | pCR | Approval |
5.6.2Study (FS_eNS_SEC)
| Yes |
YesLenovo: cannot leave it to OAM
Huawei: this would be too restrictive
Nokia: there is no restriction on the mechanism
E//: in overload situation it is marked as pending, not as failed
Nokia: if a fraction of NSSAI attaches failes, then it should be possible to reauthenticate without primary auth
Lenovo: problem is only external AAA knows when to retry.
IDCC: Agree that problem is possible, but not for this group
DCM: how does the UE know the reason, load or OAM?
Nokia: error code
QC: agree with IDCC
| merged | No | S3‑193737 | |
S3‑193398 | Solution for KI#7 revocation of rejected NSSAI | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | pCR | Approval |
5.6.2Study (FS_eNS_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193399 | Threats and Requirements for Key Issue #8 | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | pCR | Approval |
5.13Study on Security Impacts of Virtualisation (FS_SIV)
| Yes |
Yes
| revised | No | S3‑193739 | |
S3‑193400 | Threats and Requirements for Key Issue #13 | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | pCR | Approval |
5.13Study on Security Impacts of Virtualisation (FS_SIV)
| Yes |
Yes
| revised | No | S3‑193740 | |
S3‑193401 | Skeloton for eNS | Huawei, HiSilicon | draftCR | Agreement |
5.6.1Work Item (eNS_SEC)
| Yes |
YesNokia: needs an overall clause before coming to slice specific authenticaiton
E//: prefer Nokia skeleton
IDCC: prefer Nokia
BT: agree to general topic heading.
QC: agree
DCM: are there all three types of authentication possible
Nokia: no
QC: in principle, it is possible, but secondary auth is orthogonal
Nokia: remove authentication from title of x.x.2
TIM: if there is authorization in both, what is the difference?
QC: agree, remove authorization from x.x.3, make it security procedures for...
discussion on general clause captured under 402.
discussion on x.x.2
Huawei: problem with content, very confusing
orange: wording needs to be fixed, because it is on authorization.
QC: need to have prerequisite to access network, information coming down from UDM, some slices are automaticly authorized
Nokia: make this editor's note
QC: try in this meeting to get this done.
Chair: prefer to close
QC: ok, add editor's note: the content of this clause is to be reformulated to capture 3 aspects -> taken offline.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193402 | Introduction to slice-specific authentication | Huawei, HiSilicon | draftCR | Agreement |
5.6.1Work Item (eNS_SEC)
| Yes |
YesNokia: merge this, not all is valid
DCM: reproduce text given by QC.
Nokia: this tdoc is for third para of 3394, so unrelated
QC: make this ed note, remove second sentence
Huawei: remove third sentence as well
Nokia: what is problem with second sentence
Thales: it is unclear which authenticatino is meant, so delete for now.
QC: ed note: relationship netween teh different types of authentication procedures need to be provided
comments on text of 402
E//: align terminology, mention AAA proxy, baseline ok, room for improvement
Nokia: specific updates to individual sentences
Nokia: not as separate subclause, but in beginning of x.x.3, remove last two sentences, reformulate last sentence of second paragraph: multiple methods are possible.
| merged | No | S3‑193738 | |
S3‑193403 | EAP based slice-specific authentication procedure | Huawei, HiSilicon | draftCR | Agreement |
5.6.1Work Item (eNS_SEC)
| Yes |
YesNokia: each step descriptiion is different so merge is difficult
E//: even call flow is different
IDCC: missing the multiplie access, which has been added by SA2
Nokia: Nokia contribution is more correct
Huawei: multiple access is in text
Nokia: merge in offlien session
Huawei: in pleanry, how to handle AUSF:
Nokia: that depends on SA reply
-> use call flow of Nokia contribution as baseline, work offline
E//: step 13, and 14 don't work in 394
Huawei: last two paragraphs of 394 should go away
| merged | No | S3‑193738 | |
S3‑193404 | EAP method negotiation | Huawei, HiSilicon | draftCR | Agreement |
5.6.1Work Item (eNS_SEC)
| Yes |
YesNokia: disagree, UE says what it can and will do
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193405 | Add Evaluation to solution 3 | Huawei, HiSilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.6.2Study (FS_eNS_SEC)
| Yes |
YesNok: revise the sentence for clarity
| revised | No | S3‑193731 | |
S3‑193406 | Conclusion to KI#3 | Huawei, HiSilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.6.2Study (FS_eNS_SEC)
| Yes |
YesNok: Not clear that this require normative work
Hua: Needs to be started that this data can be configured
Eri: Agree with Nokia that there is no need for normative work
QC: Leaning to agree with Nokia
Huawei: Should write an LS to SA5 to get feedback on the inclusion.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193407 | Security features for NSaaS | Huawei, HiSilicon | draftCR | Agreement |
5.6.1Work Item (eNS_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193408 | Addressing EN in solution 6 | Huawei, HiSilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.6.2Study (FS_eNS_SEC)
| Yes |
YesQC: replace new text by: "if user ID privacy is required, it is protected by the EAP method"
Huawei: this solution assumes privacy is required
Orange: the requirement is not there, yet.
| revised | No | S3‑193734 | |
S3‑193409 | Evaluating solution 6 | Huawei, HiSilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.6.2Study (FS_eNS_SEC)
| Yes |
YesNokia: needs to be reworded to capture what is said in previous tdoc. Reformulate middle sentence: This solution relies on ID privacy protection by EAP framework. Delete third sentence
Huawei: third sentence is correct, just evaluation
QC: should be EAP method, not framework.
| revised | No | S3‑193735 | |
S3‑193410 | Concluding KI#4 | Huawei, HiSilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.6.2Study (FS_eNS_SEC)
| Yes |
YesQC: not ready to accept yet, but say that EAP method should provide privacy
Nokia: none of the solutions requires normative work, so that should be the conclusion
Huawei: because some EAP methods don't provide privacy
Nokia: then it is a deployment issue
Orange: agree, it is a deployment issue, non ormative work is needed.
QC: need to make point that slice owner needs to pick the right EAP method.
Huawei: yes, specify note, activate NAS and AS security
Orange: is this just a Note
Huawei: but where to put note
It was agreed: There will be a Note in 33.501 adressing the user ID privacy for the slice specific authentication procedure.
Orange: change conclusion to "no normative work is needed".
| revised | No | S3‑193736 | |
S3‑193411 | On service request in solution 8 | Huawei, HiSilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.6.2Study (FS_eNS_SEC)
| Yes |
YesNokia: four solutions in the next documents, a lot of overhead in all of them , all are complicated, maybe have an offline for those four documents
Huawei: agree
DCM: make the proposed text as real text and not NOTE
Nok: Need to add EN on idle mode mobility
Huawei: This is not ralted to resolution of EN.
| revised | No | S3‑193819 | |
S3‑193412 | On Ng-RAN node change in solution 8 | Huawei, HiSilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.6.2Study (FS_eNS_SEC)
| Yes |
YesID: Isn't it a burden to have to give the whole set of UE specific T-S-NSSAIs
Huawei: There are different options
It was agreed to take the first EN from S3-193675 in the revision of this document.
| revised | No | S3‑193820 | |
S3‑193413 | Conclusions to KI #6 | Huawei, HiSilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.6.2Study (FS_eNS_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193414 | New key issue on PFS | Huawei, HiSilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.14Study on authentication enhancements in 5GS (FS_AUTH_ENH)
| Yes |
YesE//: similar proposal in 601
together with 601
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193415 | Discussion for EAP method negotiation | Huawei, HiSilicon | discussion | Endorsement |
5.6.1Work Item (eNS_SEC)
| Yes |
YesQC: why is this needed, identity defines EAP method
Nokia: agree with QC
E//: agree with Nokia
Huawei: reference is required
Nokia: in primary it is known, so similar
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193416 | Overall evaluation of solutions addressing KI#4 | Huawei, HiSilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.6.2Study (FS_eNS_SEC)
| Yes |
YesOrange: good discussion, but not include in TR.
Huawei: what is the problem, to show what the rationale was
QC: adds no value, go straight to conclusion.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193417 | Overall evaluation of solutions addressing KI#6 | Huawei, HiSilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.6.2Study (FS_eNS_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193418 | Threats and Requirements for Key Issue #17 | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | pCR | Approval |
5.13Study on Security Impacts of Virtualisation (FS_SIV)
| Yes |
Yes
| revised | No | S3‑193741 | |
S3‑193419 | Threats and Requirements for Key Issue #18 | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | pCR | Approval |
5.13Study on Security Impacts of Virtualisation (FS_SIV)
| Yes |
Yes
| revised | No | S3‑193743 | |
S3‑193420 | Threats and Requirements for Key Issue #20 | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | pCR | Approval |
5.13Study on Security Impacts of Virtualisation (FS_SIV)
| Yes |
Yes
| revised | No | S3‑193774 | |
S3‑193421 | Threats and Requirements for Key Issue #21 | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | pCR | Approval |
5.13Study on Security Impacts of Virtualisation (FS_SIV)
| Yes |
Yes
| revised | No | S3‑193775 | |
S3‑193422 | Threats and Requirements for Key Issue #22 | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | pCR | Approval |
5.13Study on Security Impacts of Virtualisation (FS_SIV)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193423 | Protection of N9 interface in Inter-PLMN scenario | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell, Juniper | draftCR | Endorsement |
5.1.1Work Item (SBA_Sec)
| Yes |
YesNokia presents
Eri: Concerned that this includes N32 when it does not mean to
Agreed does not include N32 and taken offline for formulation.
| revised | No | S3‑193723 | |
S3‑193424 | Threats and Requirements for Key Issue #23 | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | pCR | Approval |
5.13Study on Security Impacts of Virtualisation (FS_SIV)
| Yes |
Yes
| revised | No | S3‑193776 | |
S3‑193425 | Threats and Requirements for Key Issue #24 | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | pCR | Approval |
5.13Study on Security Impacts of Virtualisation (FS_SIV)
| Yes |
Yes
| revised | No | S3‑193777 | |
S3‑193426 | [draft] reply LS on NR V2X Security for user plane data and PDCP SN size | LG Electronics France | LS out |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| revised | No | S3‑193778 | ||
S3‑193427 | Discussion on Categorization of the Key Issues | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | pCR | Endorsement |
5.13Study on Security Impacts of Virtualisation (FS_SIV)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193428 | Security requirements for UP Gateway Function | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | draftCR | Endorsement |
5.1.1Work Item (SBA_Sec)
| Yes |
YesThere were some offline revisions suggested - first line of NOTE moving to the top of the clause
Eri: proxy requirement come from SA2 - does SA3 need to say
DCM: UPGF acts a a transparent function
Huawei: Remove last sentence of NOTE as not security related
| revised | No | S3‑193720 | |
S3‑193429 | Resolution of Editors notes for Key issue 1 and 8 | LG Electronics France | pCR |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | |||
S3‑193430 | Resolution of Editors notes for Key issue 6 | LG Electronics France | pCR |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | |||
S3‑193431 | Conclusion for Key issue 10 | LG Electronics France | pCR |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| revised | No | S3‑193779 | ||
S3‑193432 | Discussion on Security of Multi-CU-UP connectivity | CATT | discussion | Decision |
4Incoming LS
| Yes |
Yes
| withdrawn | Yes | ||
S3‑193433 | LS reply to RAN WG3 LS on security for multi-CU-UP connectivity | CATT | LS out | Approval |
4Incoming LS
| Yes |
Yes
| withdrawn | Yes | ||
S3‑193434 | Draft CR-living doucment for 5G_eLCS | CATT | draftCR | Approval |
5.7Security of the enhancement to the 5GC location services (eLCS_Sec)
| Yes |
YesMerged into S3-193702
Nok: Is feature optional to use by network or UE
| merged | No | S3‑193702 | |
S3‑193435 | Discussion on security context handling in fast RRC release | LG Electronics | discussion |
5.3.1Work Item (CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
YesIntel: SA2 have not agreed to fast release, so should we discuss this here
QC: Not clear what the securiyt issue is
LG: Possible NCC mismatch
Nok: Agree with Intel that fast release is not yet standardiszed
Eri: Not clear that observation 1 is correct so maybe no security issue.
| noted | No | |||
S3‑193436 | Minimizing dependency on application layer security | Intel | pCR |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
YesQC: privacy requirements will be driven by application
E//: supporting QC
| noted | No | |||
S3‑193437 | Protection of UE capability transfer for UEs without AS security | Intel | pCR |
5.3.2Study (FS_CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
YesNo comments on the key issue and threats part of the documents.
| revised | No | S3‑193704 | ||
S3‑193438 | Security solution for UE Capability Transfer for UE with no AS security. | Intel | pCR |
5.3.2Study (FS_CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
YesE//: key issue not approved yet.
| noted | No | |||
S3‑193439 | Security solution for UE to avoid connecting to the false base station during a handover procedure | Intel | pCR |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
YesQC: contention free RA is already supported, then why not use that rather than new solution
intel: first time handover still succeeds is step 6.
E//: attacker can play number 5 preambel as well
Intel: This is in evaluation.
| noted | No | |||
S3‑193440 | Conclusions on Key Issue #3 | Intel | pCR |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
YesE//: ok with detection, but not for handover
Huawei: ok, decide the rest after RAN2 feedback
QC: wait for RAN2 feedback and further evaluation
ZTE: wait for RAN2 feedback for all
DCM: wait for RAN2 feedback for detection, handover, no normative work
QC: support DCM
Orange: support DCM
Huawei: too early.
DCM: what are waiting for on handover, what would be the best outcome to supprt handover to FBS prevention
E//: LS is only about detection.
| noted | No | |||
S3‑193441 | AKMA: Resolving the EN in AKMA push | Huawei, Hisilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.2.2Study (FS_AKMA)
| Yes |
YesEri: need to go the UDM and not clear on what is meant by security context
Huawei: Will chck on UDR or UDM and change security context to K_AUSF.
| revised | No | S3‑193761 | |
S3‑193442 | AKMA: adding the evaluation of solution #24 | Huawei, Hisilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.2.2Study (FS_AKMA)
| Yes |
YesEri: Evaluation not in template
QC: When you have a K_AUSF then UE can connnect so need evaluation on why need to use PUSH for this case - also why do we need AKMA PUSH when GBA PUSH already exists
Huawei: AKMA is a new feature and needs its own PUSH
CMCC: Do we need an editor's note for the second point?
Huawei: Confirmed that the scope of GBA PUSH enhancements is network interfaces
QC: Important that understand if we need more than PUSH solution
QC: Don't want to have two solutions for PUSH?.
| revised | No | S3‑193763 | |
S3‑193443 | AKMA: add conclusion on KI #17 | Huawei, Hisilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.2.2Study (FS_AKMA)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193444 | eSBA: add conclusion on KI #5 | Huawei, Hisilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.1.2Study (FS_SBA-Sec)
| Yes |
YesThere is a competing conclusion in S3-193444.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193445 | eSBA: add conclusion on KI #24 | Huawei, Hisilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.1.2Study (FS_SBA-Sec)
| Yes |
YesEricsson: Feel that response from SA2 is needed
Huawei: Feel that it can go forward with EN
Nok: Can go forward with EN
There is a competing conclusion in S3-193618.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193446 | eSBA: add conclusion on KI #28 | Huawei, Hisilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.1.2Study (FS_SBA-Sec)
| Yes |
YesThis is a competing concusion in S3-193621
Hua: There is missing verification of the call-back and hence the solution.
Eri: No way that this can be verified.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193447 | Update on solution#15 in TR 33.855 | Huawei, Hisilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.1.2Study (FS_SBA-Sec)
| Yes |
YesEri: evaluation does not contain disadvantages
Hua: Last paragraph contains impact
Taken for offline discussion of evaluation clause.
| revised | No | S3‑193730 | |
S3‑193448 | Resolving the ENs in solution #5 | Huawei, Hisilicon, Lenovo, Motorola Mobility | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
YesE//: not sure this attack works, as it is possible to mimic the environment
DCM: should be part of evaluation
E//: ed note: how the solution is resilient against GPS spoofing and falsifying location related radio environment is FFS
QC: second ed note was not addressed
Orange: prefer not to have last paragraph of evaluation
Apple: in 6.5.2 location granularity whould be as accurate as possible, add ed ntoe what kind of granularity is sufficient.
Huawei: location using here is TAI, no other granularity is required, regarding second ed note: solved in first para, because procedure will fail.
DCM: unclear how consent is solved.
| revised | No | S3‑193835 | |
S3‑193449 | Conclusion on KI#5 of TR 33.809 | Huawei, Hisilicon, Lenovo, Motorola Mobility | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193450 | New solution for linkability attack | Huawei, Hisilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.14Study on authentication enhancements in 5GS (FS_AUTH_ENH)
| Yes |
YesOrange: add two sentences: visited network is impacted, and not R15 compatible to evaluation
E//: needs public key, another UE could impersonate the response, so not clear where failure message is coming from, unclear whether ME or USIM do calculation, impact of MAC failure message size is FFS: add ed note regarding this
BT: if SUCI protection is not there, then there is dependency
Thales: solution relies on availability of key for SUCI, add ed note.
sentence in evaluation, (Orange, Thales), 3 ed notes (E//)
| revised | No | S3‑193813 | |
S3‑193451 | Resolving the ENs in KI#3.1 | Huawei, Hisilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.14Study on authentication enhancements in 5GS (FS_AUTH_ENH)
| Yes |
YesE//: still not aligned with the study
Huawei: explained in the paper
E//: this is not part of the objectives
Huawei: then keep first ed note
E//: ok
DCM: needs editorial rewrite
Nokia: when UE is deregistered, UE context is not cleaned up, is this the problem.
Huawei: could be a problem
Nokia : clean up on next deregistration, when there is error, there should be clean up in error case
QC: similar to Nokia, are we trying to route NAS traffic through teh home network
E//: more details on attack, bring back ed note
QC: couldn't the AMF not launch the same attack by overbilling
Nokia: add editor's note
TIM: too many additional editor's note being added, bring another proposal
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193452 | New solution for removing the authentication result from the UDM | Huawei, Hisilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.14Study on authentication enhancements in 5GS (FS_AUTH_ENH)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193453 | New solution for UP security policy handling for PC5 and Uu interface | Huawei, Hisilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
YesQC: policy for PC5 and Uu should be sufficient, local policy should be enough.
Huawei: SA6 has defined a procedure for switching.
IDCC: path switching is part of 5G ProSe, wait for 5G ProSe
Huawei: TR is just study, so put it here as key issue, and study next meeting
LG: include ed note to say we wait for SA2
Nokia: prefer to postpone this and wait for SA2 to define this.
Huawei: ok with ed note.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193454 | New solution for PC5 layer key derivation using the 5G network keys | Huawei, Hisilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
YesQC: how does the application derive the PC5 link key?
Huawei: several assumptions: UE is connected to network, has key to derive, not out of coverage
Intel: agree wirth QC
QC: accept the limitiation, why do this if there is a solution for out of coverage.Ed note: what happens on UE out of coverage?
Huawei: 6.8.2 gives this.limitation, and also the benefit af allowing the operator
QC: ed note: how the UE establishes PC5 security when out of coverage is FFS, what happens when the UEs are on different PLMNs
Huawei: described in step 2
QC, only one ed note is ok, then
QC: step 7, how is senidng the PC5 key securedin case of different PLMNs
ed note on out of coverage
| revised | No | S3‑193801 | |
S3‑193455 | New SID: Study on Security Aspects of Enhancement of Support for Edge Computing in 5GC | China Unicom, CAICT, China Telecom, Huawei, Hisilicon, ZTE | SID new | Approval |
6Any Other Business
| Yes |
YesOrange: simplify objective by pointing to SA2 work,
Samsung: split this into two
Thales: don't know for UICC
QC: this is release 17, so not really for endorsement
CMCC: are there objections
QC: process needs to be adhered
Nokia: too early to start on this, wait more for SA2 progress
QC: have similar comment
feedback given, to be noted
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193456 | Adding the evaluation of solution #15 | Huawei, Hisilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.10.2Study (FS_Vertical_LAN_SEC)
| Yes |
YesE//: support this
Nokia: it is modifying the message on the radio interface
Huawei: wait for RAN2 response on that
Nokia: this comment can come back next time
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193457 | Adding conclusion on KI #6.2 | Huawei, Hisilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.10.2Study (FS_Vertical_LAN_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193458 | Discussion on potential solutions to security handling of AMF reallocation | Huawei, Hisilicon | discussion | Endorsement |
6Any Other Business
| Yes |
YesDCM: not in scope
Nokia: waitinig for reply LS from SA2
Huawei: decision is to do nothing in SA2
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193459 | solution on AUTS derivation to protect SQN | Huawei, Hisilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.14Study on authentication enhancements in 5GS (FS_AUTH_ENH)
| Yes |
YesQC: there is no non-malleable block cipher for 48 bit,
Orange: impact on Milenage and TUAK
TIM: also new UICCs needs to be written
QC: no arrow down form AK in diagram
replace eval text, solution requires a major change of auth algorithms, and the examples defined in 3GPP (Milenage and TUAK), solution requires change of USIM
| revised | No | S3‑193815 | |
S3‑193460 | Address the EN and add evaluation in solution 2.3 | Huawei, Hisilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.14Study on authentication enhancements in 5GS (FS_AUTH_ENH)
| Yes |
YesE//: ed note in evalution: NAS procedure impact is FFS
Orange: statement: this solution impact the visisted network
ed note on NAS preocedure, sentence on visited network impact
| revised | No | S3‑193814 | |
S3‑193461 | A solution to protect MIB/SIBs | Huawei, Hisilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
YesE//: incomplete, doesn't support UE in Idle mode, disagree
Huawei: if NAS security is available, then use NAS security in IDLE
QC: E// comment is about evaluation
Apple, similar to previous, solution not needed.
Samsung: hash 2 details are missing
Huawei: key issue is not concluded, this is only for TR.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193462 | Discussion on binding between USIM/UICC and IAB-node | Huawei, Hisilicon | pCR | Discussion |
5.15.2Study (FS_NR_IAB_Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193463 | Key issue on removal of UICC card in IAB node | Huawei, Hisilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.15.2Study (FS_NR_IAB_Sec)
| Yes |
YesNokia: agree with first requirement, but second requirement assumes removable UICC, should go away
BT: support second requirement staying, to remove
Huawei: competing 654
together with 654
| revised | No | S3‑193793 | |
S3‑193464 | Evaluation of solution#2.1 | Huawei, Hisilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.15.2Study (FS_NR_IAB_Sec)
| Yes |
YesE//: ast sentence should go, looks like solution.
| merged | No | S3‑193789 | |
S3‑193465 | Solution for protection of time synchronization | Huawei, Hisilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.10.2Study (FS_Vertical_LAN_SEC)
| Yes |
YesNokia: need more details, ed note details in line with SA2 specs is FFS
| revised | No | S3‑193709 | |
S3‑193466 | Conclusion on protection of time synchronization | Huawei, Hisilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.10.2Study (FS_Vertical_LAN_SEC)
| Yes |
YesNokia: postpone to next meeting.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193467 | Remove the EN and add evaluation to solution 6 | Huawei, Hisilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.10.2Study (FS_Vertical_LAN_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193468 | Propose AKMA architecture | Huawei, Hisilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.2.1Work Item (AKMA)
| Yes |
YesThere are competing proposals in S3-193584 and S3-193599
BT: Like S3-19599 as it looks more service based
Orange: We are defining a service that provides keys for use in an application
KPN: Why have the UDM in the picture?
Huawei: Need to make the high levl descision, e.g. local of anchor function, so issue with Ericsson's text on where a key is derived - prefer S3-193584 as the baseline for merger
Orange: No point having non-SBA interfaces as the core network is now servive based
Huwaei: Need UDM in picture
Orange: Do not see the point of not using a service based representation as that is now the normal
CMCC: Both representations are equivalent
Orange: Will object to non-service based version
Agreed to use UE and AF boxes - also AAnF will be the name of the AKMA anchor function
Orange: It is more complicated than the pictures shows as an AF outside 3GPP network may need to use an NEF to access AAnF?
Merged into 771.
| merged | No | S3‑193771 | |
S3‑193469 | Propose AKMA key hierarchy | Huawei, Hisilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.2.1Work Item (AKMA)
| Yes |
YesOrange: Name of functions changes to AAnF and other fucntion to AF - key name should also change.
| merged | No | S3‑193772 | |
S3‑193470 | Conclusion on 7.3 | Huawei, Hisilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.2.2Study (FS_AKMA)
| Yes |
YesEri: maybe not possibel to conclude on this
CMCC: No been decided whether anchor function is standalone
KPN: Come a bit of out of the blue and not related to a solution - not ready to conclude.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193471 | Conclusion on 7.4 | Huawei, Hisilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.2.2Study (FS_AKMA)
| Yes |
YesThere is an alternative conclusion in S3-193586
QC: not ready to make this conclusion as there are alternatives - hence need more analysis on how this should be done.
| merged | No | S3‑193768 | |
S3‑193472 | Propose new conlusion section | Huawei, Hisilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.2.2Study (FS_AKMA)
| Yes |
YesEri: there is already a place for this conclusion
CMCC: Agree with ericsson.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193473 | Evaluation for solution4 | Huawei, Hisilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.2.2Study (FS_AKMA)
| Yes |
YesThis was missed for earlier implementation of the TR.
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193474 | Evaluation for solution22 | Huawei, Hisilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.2.2Study (FS_AKMA)
| Yes |
YesEri: Does not fit the template for evaluations
QC: Think first sentence should go away.
| revised | No | S3‑193764 | |
S3‑193475 | Implicite AKMA authenticaiton procedure | Huawei, Hisilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.2.2Study (FS_AKMA)
| Yes |
YesEricsson: this solution changes primary authentication and not sure if this is acceptable
QC: Do not understand why we are having an new solution.
Huawei: Can it derive the K_AKMA?
Eri: Changes the Registrations Accept
QC: do not understand why a different solution is needed when we have agreed solution.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193476 | draftCR for URLLC | Huawei, Hisilicon | draftCR | Approval |
5.8Security for 5G URLLC (5G_URLLC_SEC)
| Yes |
YesLiving document from last time
| revised | No | S3‑193699 | |
S3‑193477 | change introduction to align with URLLC architect | Huawei, Hisilicon | draftCR | Approval |
5.8Security for 5G URLLC (5G_URLLC_SEC)
| Yes |
YesEri: Propose that could move text out of dual connectivity
Huawei: Only one line on redundant bearer in SA2
QC: typo in wording
Nokia: Is two path mandatory?
Huwaei: It is not manadatory
DCM: Language should not be normative where it is SA2 described procedures.
| revised | No | S3‑193700 | |
S3‑193478 | clarification on security policy handling | Huawei, Hisilicon | draftCR | Approval |
5.8Security for 5G URLLC (5G_URLLC_SEC)
| Yes |
YesQC: Baseline text is wrong - first sentence of third paragraph is not needed
Eri: Have a similar concern
| merged | No | S3‑193701 | |
S3‑193479 | living doc for 5WWC | Huawei, Hisilicon | draftCR | Approval |
5.4Security of the Wireless and Wireline Convergence for the 5G system architecture (5WWC_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| revised | No | S3‑193684 | |
S3‑193480 | Authentication for 5G-RG | Huawei, Hisilicon | draftCR | Approval |
5.4Security of the Wireless and Wireline Convergence for the 5G system architecture (5WWC_SEC)
| Yes |
YesBT: equipped with UICC, prevent removal and replacement
Huawei: not part of study, need requirement in study for next meeting
E//: remove Ipsec in step 12.
| revised | No | S3‑193687 | |
S3‑193481 | Authentication for FN-RG | Huawei, Hisilicon | draftCR | Approval |
5.4Security of the Wireless and Wireline Convergence for the 5G system architecture (5WWC_SEC)
| Yes |
YesQC: duplicate steps 6 in call flow
E//: AUSF skips authentication - doesn't perform auth
DCM: lack of shalls
E//: clarify that FN-RG is legacy
Huawei: this is already in general clause
QC: title should be about security procedures, because this is more general.
| revised | No | S3‑193688 | |
S3‑193482 | Conclusion for Key Issue #4 | Huawei, Hisilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.3.2Study (FS_CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193483 | CR for DDoS mitigation caused by misbehaving CIoT UEs | Huawei, Hisilicon | draftCR | Approval |
5.3.1Work Item (CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
YesNok: don't need this
QC: agree with Nokia.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193484 | Security handling for RRCConnectionRe-establishment Procedure for Control Plane Optimization for 5GS CIoT | Huawei, Hisilicon | draftCR | Approval |
5.3.1Work Item (CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
YesAwaiting SA2 descion on truncating S-TMSI.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193485 | Security handling in Control Plane User Datafor Control Plane Optimization for 5GS CIoT | Huawei, Hisilicon | draftCR | Approval |
5.3.1Work Item (CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
YesSpelling corrections and addition of EN from S3-193558
Nokia: An EN on FFS to clarify the encoding on CP optimisated messages.
| revised | No | S3‑193818 | |
S3‑193486 | Merged Solution for RRC Reject Protection | Huawei, Hisilicon, Samsung | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
YesEri: Have concerns with the solution
QC: Also have concerns with this solution.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193487 | Conclusion for Key Issue #1 for RRC Reject | Huawei, Hisilicon, Samsung | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
YesEri: no normative work needed
QC: Agree with Ericsson.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193488 | Update on Protection of RRC Resume Request message | Huawei, Hisilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
YesEri: Simpler solution is available as needs to be updated as message content changes
Apple: This could be merged with Ericsson solution.
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193489 | Conclusion for Key Issue #1 for RRC Resume Request Protection | Huawei, Hisilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
YesE//: competing solution
Huawei, then postpone.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193490 | Conclusion for Key Issue #2 | Huawei, Hisilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
YesOrange: disagree to have different soultions for NPN and for public network.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193491 | Solution for Avoiding UE connecting to False Base Station during Conditional Handover | Huawei, Hisilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
YesE//: same comments as previous, overhead, malicious radio repeater, sentence in evaluation
DCM: does it make sense to document when we know we are not doing anything about it?
E//: evaluation is there already, so doesn't need to be touched again
QC: same things from previous contribution
DCM: there is sentence about neww signalling overhead
QC: copy sentence from previous contribution
Huawei: change sentence to ivnolves overhead
sentence: about radio repeaters, include ed note, say requires overhead.
| revised | No | S3‑193760 | |
S3‑193492 | LS to RAN1 on Clarification for parameters used to avoid UE connecting to the FBS | Huawei, Hisilicon | LS out | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
Yes
| withdrawn | Yes | ||
S3‑193493 | Address EN in solution 23 | Huawei, Hisilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.3.2Study (FS_CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
YesNok: It seems strange to add the load to the surrounding base stations
Huawei: by sending mis-behaving UE ID to other base stations so the other base stations know about mis-behaving Ues
Eri: Update is OK but concerned about the use of the list in general
Nok: Making the update optional would improve the situation
DCM: RAN should be made to eNB/gNBs probably throughout the whole solution.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193494 | Conclusion of KI#5 | Huawei, Hisilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.3.2Study (FS_CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193495 | New solution on KI #9 minimizing the impact of privacy protection mechanism in the application layer communication | Huawei, Hisilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| withdrawn | Yes | ||
S3‑193496 | Conclusion on KI#6 | Ericsson, Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | pCR | Approval |
5.6.2Study (FS_eNS_SEC)
| Yes |
YesNokia: propose to have call before next meeting on NSSAI privacy.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193497 | New KI: Preventing mismatch for EDT with fast release | LG Electronics France | discussion |
5.3.2Study (FS_CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
YesNok: Need to wait for SA2 work
Eri: Agree to wait for SA2 but still a key issue open on this topic
DCM: Concern that we need to wait for SA2 in all cases.
| noted | No | |||
S3‑193498 | Conclusin of key issue#2 | Apple | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
YesQC: disagree, provide evaluation for each of the options, first evaluations need to be completed.
Orange: there are still some open security issues, type of paper is like discussion paper.
E// support Apple
DCM: not conclude this before provisioning is defined
Huawei: same comment.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193499 | Update for Solution#7 | Apple | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
YesQC: disagree, should be noted.
Huawei: support QC, when UE moves to new area, it is possible to connect to FBS wthout the UE noticing, that is a technical problem
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193500 | Evaluation for solution#14 | Apple | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
YesQC: disagree
E//: support apple
Huawei: support QC.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193501 | Update of Solution#11 | Apple | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
YesOrange: major problem is provisioning, therefore it is not viable
orange: not linking the SUCI scheme
DCM: provisioning is essential
BT: not link to SUCI scheme to not make it more difficult to SUCI off the ground
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193502 | Protection of UeapabilityInformation | Apple | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
YesOrange: this is concluded already?
Huawei: agree with Orange.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193503 | 5G paging security issue caused by false base station | Apple | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
YesOrange: is this DoS or ID request attack? Not required a new threat not clear what is leaked
QC: paging identifiers are realloceted every time, so not needed
Apple: attacker could guess the 5GS TMSI
Nokia: all 5G S-TMSI can be discovered after 45h,
DCM: bigger problem are cross layer attacks, this is too small a problem to solve.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193504 | solution for new key issue of 5G paging security issue caused by false base station | Apple | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193505 | Discussion on 5G UE privacy when connecting to EPC | Apple | discussion | Agreement |
6Any Other Business
| Yes |
YesDCM: if this is proposal for a new study item, the in scope, technically it will be very difficult
Nokia: will be very difficult to do this in all networks
QC: in 5G study, we looked at this in detail, but didn't get a working solution
Huawei: agree
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193506 | Meeting minutes of 5GFBS July conference call on July 18th | Apple | discussion | Information |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193507 | Meeting minutes of 5GFBS August conference call on August 8th | Apple | discussion | Information |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193508 | Evaluation for Solution#5 in UP IP | Apple | pCR | Approval |
5.12Study on User Plane Integrity Protection (FS_UP_IP_Sec)
| Yes |
YesCMMC: Do not agree with the figures given in evaluation
Apple: Point is that this solution cannot protect all the data packets when limited to 64 kbps
| merged | No | S3‑193696 | |
S3‑193509 | Solution to key issue#5 in UP IP | Apple | pCR | Approval |
5.12Study on User Plane Integrity Protection (FS_UP_IP_Sec)
| Yes |
YesQC: Does not address attack - issue raised at the last meeting not resolved
DCM: Not sure that this works well as padding is at the end
Apple: Padding is not only at the end but also at the start
CMCC: Solution does not work without encryption
DCM: needs to adding padding to both beginning and end
Nok: Agree with the weaknesses of this proposal and the gain is too small
Taken offline for discussion
| revised | No | S3‑193694 | |
S3‑193510 | EAP-AKA privacy enhancement in non-3GPP access to EPS | Apple | SID new | Approval |
6Any Other Business
| No |
Yes
| revised | No | S3‑193629 | |
S3‑193511 | Conclusion of CAG ID Privacy | ZTE Corporation | pCR | Approval |
5.10.2Study (FS_Vertical_LAN_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193512 | CAG ID Privacy for non-public networks | ZTE Corporation | draftCR | Approval |
5.10.1Work Item (Vertical_LAN_SEC)
| Yes |
YesNokia: depends on study item.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193513 | User identity privacy for GBA in 5GC | ZTE Corporation | pCR | Approval |
5.2.2Study (FS_AKMA)
| Yes |
YesCMCC: Don't have the GBA content in the TR
Eri: Maybe in scope of the other SID
Orange: Agree that could be treated in 5G GBA SID.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193514 | Assessment and evaluation of solution #9 | ZTE Corporation | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
YesE//: SIB/MIB is matter of serving network, so shouldn't involve home network.
Orange: agree.
BT: support that, not using home public key.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193515 | Structure RAND for authentication | ZTE Corporation | pCR | Approval |
5.14Study on authentication enhancements in 5GS (FS_AUTH_ENH)
| Yes |
YesE//: as instances come and go in virtual environment start-up time is FFS
Orange: don't understand what are threats and requirements to be covered, so not include the solution
DCM: how does home network know that ME is capable of this solution
ZTE: doesn't know.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193516 | Conclusion on linkability issues | ZTE Corporation | pCR | Approval |
5.14Study on authentication enhancements in 5GS (FS_AUTH_ENH)
| Yes |
YesThales: too early for conclusions
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193517 | Resolving ENs of solution #12 | ZTE Corporation | pCR | Approval |
5.6.2Study (FS_eNS_SEC)
| Yes |
YesE//: keep first editor's note
Nokia: 676 is comments
together with 676
ZTE: this solution has similar to Huawei solution, why not only one ed note
Nokia: more ed notes are more helpful, but also ok to say solve idle mode mobillity
bring back first ed note, ed note on idle mode mobility to be added
| revised | No | S3‑193825 | |
S3‑193518 | Evaluation of solution #12 | ZTE Corporation | pCR | Approval |
5.6.2Study (FS_eNS_SEC)
| Yes |
YesNokia: to early to add evaluation without idle mode mobility.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193519 | New key issue on protection against Man-in-the-Middle false IAB node attacks | ZTE Corporation | pCR | Approval |
5.15.2Study (FS_NR_IAB_Sec)
| Yes |
YesHuawei: merge with 793
E//: not related, one has to break F1 security
Nokia: disagree with tdoc
QC: disagree with tdoc
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193520 | New key issue on security for multi-USIM communication over UU and PC5 | ZTE Corporation | pCR | Approval |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
YesIDCC: there is no security component, not SA3 issue, threats missing
Nokia: this is not scope in our group
QC: not in scope here
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193521 | Editorial correction to TR 33.824 | ZTE Corporation | pCR | Approval |
5.15.2Study (FS_NR_IAB_Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193522 | A solution against V2X UE tracking based on PC5 identifiers | Ericsson LM | pCR | Approval |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
YesLenovo: this is about L2 destiantion Ids?
QC: source Ids
QC: ok to approve this, and note 342
IDCC: what about privacy of groupcast? Put ed note, privacy of gorupcast is FFS
QC: that is attempted to solve in Lenovo contribution
IDCC: but that doesn't change the group ID
Lenovo: it does
no changes
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193523 | TR 33.819 update | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | pCR | Approval |
5.10.2Study (FS_Vertical_LAN_SEC)
| Yes |
YesIDCC: don't waste time on CAG ID privacy, wait for SA2 progress.
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193524 | Status of TR | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | discussion | Discussion |
5.10.2Study (FS_Vertical_LAN_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193525 | CAG ID privacy solution considering RAN optimization | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | pCR | Approval |
5.10.2Study (FS_Vertical_LAN_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193526 | CAG ID privacy conclusion -v1 | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | pCR | Approval |
5.10.2Study (FS_Vertical_LAN_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193527 | CR CAG ID privacy | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | draftCR | Agreement |
5.10.1Work Item (Vertical_LAN_SEC)
| Yes |
Yesit depends on study item.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193528 | Removal of ed.note on conformance tests | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | draftCR | Agreement |
5.10.1Work Item (Vertical_LAN_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193529 | Editorial correction of format | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | draftCR | Agreement |
5.10.1Work Item (Vertical_LAN_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| revised | No | S3‑193705 | |
S3‑193530 | Conclusion to key issue 2.3 | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | pCR | Approval |
5.10.2Study (FS_Vertical_LAN_SEC)
| Yes |
YesOrange: no conclusion for this one, noted
BT is this related to multiple subscriptions
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193531 | CR Interworking between NPN and PLMN | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | draftCR | Agreement |
5.10.1Work Item (Vertical_LAN_SEC)
| Yes |
YesE//: depends on result of study
Nokia: document in Annex, in SA2, or subclause somewhere else
QC: document separate fromm NPN
DCM: not in SA2
QC: clarify this is about secondary authentication
tdoc name of revision had to be changed to reflect content
| revised | No | S3‑193706 | |
S3‑193532 | CR Annex 5GLAN | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | draftCR | Agreement |
5.10.1Work Item (Vertical_LAN_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| revised | No | S3‑193707 | |
S3‑193533 | CR Annex TSC | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | draftCR | Agreement |
5.10.1Work Item (Vertical_LAN_SEC)
| Yes |
YesOrange: nothing required in our TS.
Huawei: change NPN to SNPN
Thales: prefer not to add anything now.
Orange: also nothing is required for integrated NPNs.
Title should be(to reflect content of contribution): CR Interworking between NPN and PLMN
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193534 | KI on Protection of authentication subscription data stored in UDR | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | other | Approval |
5.17Study on storage and transport of the security parameters in a 5GC, that are used by the ARPF for Authentication (FS_5GC_sec_storage_transport)
| Yes |
YesKPN: Key issue is above transport and storage - better to split this into two key issues as only last sentence is about transfer
Thales: modifcation of data need to authorised as well
DCM: Needs security threat on confidentiality of data and also a threat on copying data to another subcription plus associated requirement
TI: Need to understand what is the sensitive data and subscription authentication data
KPN: Mention of transfer should also be deleted
Vdf: Support DCM new threat
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193535 | KI on Separation of authentication subscription data from subscription data | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | other | Approval |
5.17Study on storage and transport of the security parameters in a 5GC, that are used by the ARPF for Authentication (FS_5GC_sec_storage_transport)
| Yes |
YesCMCC: More of an implementation issue rather than a security issue as too difficult to separate them
KPN: Support this key issue
BT: support this key issue - modify to make it "stored and managed" separately
CMMC: Feel that separtion is a soluiton and not a requirement
BT: Biggest threat is people who are runnung the the network should not get access to the more sensitive data
ID: Separate treatment of data is common
DCM: Reformulate the requirement to compartmentalize the the data rather than store it separately
TI: Propose EN that the used terms need to be defined
Hua: Support CMCC comments
| revised | No | S3‑193747 | |
S3‑193536 | CIOT: Update of KI#12 description | Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.3.2Study (FS_CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
YesQC: Why key issue needed as initial NAS Security covers them?
BT: Thought we had agreement on protecting IEs by default
Nok: dont feel they are a privacy threat
QC: don't need a key issue
There was general agreement that initial NAS security should be used to protect these IEs but it was not clear in the meeting that the tex in TS 33.401 covered this.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193537 | CIOT: update to the evaluation of solution #24 | Ericsson, Qualcomm Incorporated | pCR | Approval |
5.3.2Study (FS_CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193538 | CIOT: recommendation to support solution #24 to solve KI #11 | Ericsson, Qualcomm Incorporated | pCR | Approval |
5.3.2Study (FS_CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193539 | CIOT: Conclusion on KI #4 | Ericsson, Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell, Qualcomm Incorporated, Samsung | pCR | Approval |
5.3.2Study (FS_CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
YesSupport: cosigners
Object: KPN, Huawei
DCM: same as KPN conclusion, except for SA2 part, send LS to SA2 instead.
Approved as LS has been sent
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193540 | CIOT: Conclusion on KI #5 | Ericsson Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell, Qualcomm Incorporated, Samsung | pCR | Approval |
5.3.2Study (FS_CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
YesNokia: solution 23 spreads load to other base stations
Huawei: NWDAF to gNB interface is missing
Huawei: remove first paragraph
DCM: if NWDAF doesnt provide the information, then this needs to be added to LS
Huawei: delete the sentence,
| revised | No | S3‑193711 | |
S3‑193541 | CIOT: Discussion on DDoS solutions for KI#4 and KI#5 | Ericsson, Qualcomm Incorporated, Samsung | pCR | Approval |
5.3.2Study (FS_CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193542 | CIOT: Title correction solution 13 | Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.3.2Study (FS_CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193543 | CIOT: Proposed conclusion to KI#10 | Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.3.2Study (FS_CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193544 | CIOT: Proposed conclusion to KI#7 | Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.3.2Study (FS_CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
YesLenovo: add that stationary UE need more attention
DCM: don't understand that limitation, keep E// contribution
offline what to add for this.
| revised | No | S3‑193712 | |
S3‑193545 | CIOT: Proposed clarifications to KI#6 | Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.3.2Study (FS_CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193546 | CIOT: Proposed_conclusion_KI_8 | Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.3.2Study (FS_CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
YesDCM: delete last sentence.
| revised | No | S3‑193713 | |
S3‑193547 | CIOT: Proposed_conclusion_KI_6 | Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.3.2Study (FS_CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193548 | CIOT: Update of Solution #14 | Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.3.2Study (FS_CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193549 | CIOT: Conclusion for KI#12 | Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.3.2Study (FS_CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
YesE// presents, propose to say: no normative work is required.
| revised | No | S3‑193714 | |
S3‑193550 | Solution for trusted non-3GPP access | Lenovo, Motorola Mobility | draftCR | Approval |
5.4Security of the Wireless and Wireline Convergence for the 5G system architecture (5WWC_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| revised | No | S3‑193685 | |
S3‑193551 | Solution on 5GC access from WLAN UEs that do not support NAS | Lenovo, Motorola Mobility | draftCR | Approval |
5.4Security of the Wireless and Wireline Convergence for the 5G system architecture (5WWC_SEC)
| Yes |
YesOrange: questions whether the text is needed as they don't support authentication
Len: There are some inter-working functions
Orange: would like to see text that shows what is different to general authentication
Len: will work offline to produce that text
Thales: do not understand why use the term 'devices'
Len: usage follows 23.502.
| revised | No | S3‑193690 | |
S3‑193552 | Conclusion on Key Issue#7 | Lenovo, Motorola Mobility | pCR | Approval |
5.3.2Study (FS_CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
YesNokia: explain "missing freedom of key derivation"
Lenovo: because there is only NCC in key derivation, the attacker can assume that NCC is incremented each time.
| merged | No | S3‑193712 | |
S3‑193553 | Clarification on cancellation of rejected S-NSSAIs | Lenovo, Motorola Mobility | pCR | Approval |
5.6.2Study (FS_eNS_SEC)
| Yes |
YesNokia: next tdoc, on same clauses.
| revised | No | S3‑193737 | |
S3‑193554 | Solution on Cancellation of rejected S-NSSAIs | Lenovo, Motorola Mobility | pCR | Approval |
5.6.2Study (FS_eNS_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193555 | Update of Solution #15 | Lenovo, Motorola Mobility | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
YesE//: how is this working reagrding NAS keys and serving network name
E//: NAS SMC integrity failure could be because of radio failure
Lenovo: that can't happen on NAS, maybe in PDCP
E//: ed note: whether NAS layer integrity protection could fail due to radio conditions
E//: ed note: are NAS SMC failures only due to causes mentioned in this solution are FFS
QC: similar comment, second ed note has not been addressed
Lenovo: ok
QC:add ed note further evaluation is FFS
1 ed note: NAS failures, bring back ed note on error handling, ednote in evaluation further evaluation is ffs.
| revised | No | S3‑193836 | |
S3‑193556 | Update of solution #6 | Lenovo, Motorola Mobility | pCR | Approval |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193557 | Identifier conversion in groupcast communication | Lenovo, Motorola Mobility | pCR | Approval |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
YesHuawei: second last sentence first para, why in oder not to signal
Lenovo: so in order not to update
Huawei: so interval dT is fixed.problem with time synchronization
QC: remove evaluation line, basically application layer manages time interval
IDCC: use time for synchronization, use unprotected SIB or unprotected time source. add ed note on how to deal with spoofed time source is ffs
DCM: changing of group id may identify group members
BT: how to deal with impact on availability is ffs
remove evaluation, ednote from IDCC and BT
| revised | No | S3‑193804 | |
S3‑193558 | DraftCR Control Plane optimized solution | Ericsson | other | Approval |
5.3.1Work Item (CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
YesEditor's note from this document should be merged into S3-193818 (update of S3-193485).
| merged | No | S3‑193818 | |
S3‑193559 | DraftCR RRC Connection Re-Establishment for the control plane for NB-IoT connected to 5GC | Ericsson | other | Approval |
5.3.1Work Item (CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
YesAwaiting SA2 descion on truncating S-TMSI.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193560 | DraftCR Control Plane optimized solution | Ericsson | other | Approval |
5.3.1Work Item (CIoT_sec_5G)
| No |
Yes
| withdrawn | Yes | ||
S3‑193561 | DraftCR NAS based redirection between 5GS and EPC | Ericsson | other | Approval |
5.3.1Work Item (CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193562 | DraftCR - Proposed skeleton for supporting 5G CIoT [Living Document] | Ericsson | other | Approval |
5.3.1Work Item (CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
Yes
| revised | No | S3‑193716 | |
S3‑193563 | Draft CR as a living baseline for 5GS LCS normative work | Ericsson LM | draftCR | Approval |
5.7Security of the enhancement to the 5GC location services (eLCS_Sec)
| Yes |
YesHuawei: Prefer S3-193563 over S3-193434 - add an EN about bluetooth public name and public address is FFS and one about connection to false access point is FFS
BT: EN should be about corrupting data collection
DCM: Need an EN on linking names to network
Interdigital: If the data is collected without vefirication, then it has no value as it could be be faked to provide an attack.
QC: Text should be a new Annex.
| revised | No | S3‑193702 | |
S3‑193564 | [Draft CR]Solution for IAB Architecture | Samsung | draftCR |
5.15.1Work Item (NR_IAB_Sec)
| Yes |
YesBT: the IAB node needs to be protected like a gNB
Samsung: add in next meeting
together with 611
| revised | No | S3‑193808 | ||
S3‑193565 | Updates to Solution #2.1 on MT functionality | Samsung | pCR |
5.15.2Study (FS_NR_IAB_Sec)
| Yes |
YesE//: is this copy paste from SA2
Samsung: yes
Huawei: Note how the IAB node
within UICC is not used,
Thales: why is the note there at all
Nokia: in 23.501, IoB node has gNB functionality, could be many platforms
QC: comment on paragraph above node, bacuse with EPC, there is no EAP support. should be treated as UE in 33.501. prefer the defined primary authentication methods.
Samsung: may be true for one kind of implementation
DCM: stick to existing authentication mechanisms
Nokia: need to be flexible,
Huawei: maybe treat IAB as NPN UE
Samsung: restrict option for EPC.
| revised | No | S3‑193788 | ||
S3‑193566 | Draft TR 33.845 Storage of sensitive credentials in 5G systems v0.0.0 | VODAFONE Group Plc | draft TR | Approval |
5.17Study on storage and transport of the security parameters in a 5GC, that are used by the ARPF for Authentication (FS_5GC_sec_storage_transport)
| Yes |
YesIntroduction removed
Duplicate clauses removed
| revised | No | S3‑193744 | |
S3‑193567 | Evaluation of solution #2.1 | Samsung | pCR |
5.15.2Study (FS_NR_IAB_Sec)
| Yes |
YesDCM: ok, problem is only whether we restrict further
| revised | No | S3‑193789 | ||
S3‑193568 | Conclusion to Key Issue#2.1 on authentication and authorization of the IAB Node (MT) | Samsung | pCR |
5.15.2Study (FS_NR_IAB_Sec)
| Yes |
YesQC: solution 2.1 is open
DCM: be more specific what will be normative
Nokia: fine with the contribution as is
Chair only Note and para above is open of 2.1
Thales: same problem, keep open
| revised | No | S3‑193790 | ||
S3‑193569 | CIOT: Discussion paper on ngKSI for NB-IoT in 5G-CIoT. | Ericsson | discussion | Endorsement |
5.3.1Work Item (CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193570 | CIOT: Discussion paper on short MAC-I for NB-IoT in 5G-CIoT. | Ericsson | discussion | Endorsement |
5.3.1Work Item (CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193571 | Draft LS reply on LS on short MAC-I and ngKSI for 5G-CIoT | Ericsson | LS out | Approval |
5.3.1Work Item (CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
YesQC: first answer: make it shorter, not a security issue
DCM: if inteintegrity protection fails, then there is possibility of mismatch and of attack
QC: there can't be a mismatch on CPSR message
offline
QC: second question: shorter, simply say no. agree to not reduce reduced size MAC.
| revised | No | S3‑193715 | |
S3‑193572 | Evaluation of solution #3.1 | Samsung | pCR |
5.15.2Study (FS_NR_IAB_Sec)
| Yes |
YesQC: unclear where the requirement comes from.
E//: support QC, interface security should look the same for wireless and wireline
Nokia: prefer 572
QC: why one credential, how do you attach to management server.
| noted | No | |||
S3‑193573 | Conclusion to Key Issue#2.1 on authentication and authorization of the IAB Node (gNB-DU) | Samsung | pCR |
5.15.2Study (FS_NR_IAB_Sec)
| Yes |
YesDCM: think about platform security keys
Samsung: IAB has gNB requirements, so no platform security
| revised | No | S3‑193792 | ||
S3‑193574 | Solution for Resumecause protection | Samsung | pCR |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
YesEri: Solution is not needed
Sam: In case of conjestion, then short-MAC-I may not be checked
Huawei: Disagree with this solution.
| noted | No | |||
S3‑193575 | Evaluation of solution#14 in TR 33.809 | Samsung | pCR |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
YesQC: disagree, first statement is false, because step 1 is only after AS security set up, it is to protect SIB messages, not against fake base stations
Apple: support Samsung
E//: same comment
Huawei: support QC
Orange: support QC.
| noted | No | |||
S3‑193576 | Updates to Solution#7 on obtaining accurate clock information | Samsung | pCR |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | |||
S3‑193577 | Deletion of EN on Location update reject in Solution#7 | Samsung | pCR |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
YesHuawei: whem UE sends reg req message, this is not integrity protected. Add ed note or note this
Samsung: not part of solution,
QC: keep ed note and note this, as it doesn't explain
E//: support, but ok to note to make progress
| noted | No | |||
S3‑193578 | Delete the Evaluation for Solution 5 in TR 33.853 | China Mobile | pCR | Approval |
5.12Study on User Plane Integrity Protection (FS_UP_IP_Sec)
| Yes |
YesQC: PDCP is not aware whether traffic is IP or not IP but agree the sentence is not correct
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193579 | Resolving Editors Note in Solution #1 | Samsung | pCR |
5.12Study on User Plane Integrity Protection (FS_UP_IP_Sec)
| Yes |
YesQC: Do not agree to delete EN as there are other attacks and also SIP signalling not a good example as this has its own protection
BT: Needs to consider all control plane protections and other sensitive traffic not just the listed ones
DCM: Need to clarify that all the protected data is less than 64Kbits
QC: OK if we note other data not protected
Nok: is this new capability
Samsung: exisiting capability
| revised | No | S3‑193695 | ||
S3‑193580 | Add the Evaluation to Solution 5 in TR 33.853 | China Mobile | pCR |
5.12Study on User Plane Integrity Protection (FS_UP_IP_Sec)
| Yes |
YesQC: All the parts of the evaluation need to be re-written
Nok: Need to detremoine if just header or the whole packets needs to be protected
QC: Agree with this but that there are many other issues as well
| revised | No | S3‑193696 | ||
S3‑193581 | Conclusion to Key Issue #5 | Samsung | pCR |
5.12Study on User Plane Integrity Protection (FS_UP_IP_Sec)
| Yes |
YesQC: does not agree with the conclusion.
| noted | No | |||
S3‑193582 | skeleton of AKMA TS | China Mobile, Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | draft TS | Approval |
5.2.1Work Item (AKMA)
| Yes |
YesHuawei: Prefer CMCC version
QC: OK to merge but think that there are good sections in Ericsson which should be kept.
| revised | No | S3‑193769 | |
S3‑193583 | scope of AKMA TS | China Mobile, Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | pCR | Approval |
5.2.1Work Item (AKMA)
| Yes |
YesQC: Remove 3GPP and change to subscription credentials.
Orange: Reference the subscription credentials in TS 33.501 - align terminology with study.
QC: Remove the bullet list paragraph
Orange: Remove the 2nd sentence of first paragraph.
| revised | No | S3‑193770 | |
S3‑193584 | draft CR of AKMA architecture | China Mobile, Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | pCR | Approval |
5.2.1Work Item (AKMA)
| Yes |
Yes
| revised | No | S3‑193771 | |
S3‑193585 | conclusion on key issue #2 | China Mobile | pCR | Approval |
5.2.2Study (FS_AKMA)
| Yes |
YesEri: Key issue does not security theats or requirements - which messages are used
CMCC: To use NAS procedures between UE and 5GC
QC: Also struggle to see what the conclusion means.
| revised | No | S3‑193767 | |
S3‑193586 | Conclusion on key issue #5 | China Mobile | pCR | Approval |
5.2.2Study (FS_AKMA)
| Yes |
YesHuawei: Two conclusions are not competing
QC: Can make a conclusion on deriving identifier for K_AUSF
Huawei: In the TR there is a temporary identifier.
| revised | No | S3‑193768 | |
S3‑193587 | Conclusion on key issue #6 | China Mobile, KPN | pCR | Approval |
5.2.2Study (FS_AKMA)
| Yes |
YesEri: Do not agree with conclusion as this could be left applications
QC: Agree with ericsson comment
BT: Conclude on this issue now but either need it done properly or not at all
CMMC: This is a customer requirement
QC: This is in the scope of the application
ZTE: Think that this is an important requirement.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193588 | Conclusion on key issue #13 | China Mobile | pCR | Approval |
5.2.2Study (FS_AKMA)
| Yes |
YesQC: OK but do you expect changes to UE/UICC or keep it open
CMCC: keep it open.
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193589 | Editorial Changes to TR 33.835 | China Mobile | pCR | Approval |
5.2.2Study (FS_AKMA)
| Yes |
YesQC: Editorial - think that the Voids can be removed as not under change control.
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193590 | Individual Evaluation of solution #6 | China Mobile | pCR | Approval |
5.2.2Study (FS_AKMA)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193591 | Evaluation of solution#1 | China Mobile | pCR | Approval |
5.2.2Study (FS_AKMA)
| Yes |
YesEricsson: Solution addresses a problem that is not actually for AKMA.
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193592 | Evaluations of solution #7- #12 | China Mobile | pCR | Approval |
5.2.2Study (FS_AKMA)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193593 | Udpate to Solution #3 | Samsung | pCR |
5.10.2Study (FS_Vertical_LAN_SEC)
| Yes |
YesNokia: what are various factors?
Samsung remove "based on various factors", add ed note that factors should be listed
Nokia: better come back next time.
Samsung: give a few factors in this meeting
BT: concerned about dynamic factors in UDM.
| noted | No | |||
S3‑193594 | Key Issue #6.1 conclusion | Samsung | pCR |
5.10.2Study (FS_Vertical_LAN_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | |||
S3‑193595 | Solution Key lifetimes | Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.2.2Study (FS_AKMA)
| Yes |
YesQC: OK with proposal and analysis. Normative text on requirements in evaluation should go away.
| revised | No | S3‑193765 | |
S3‑193596 | Skeleton of clause 4 and selected content for AKMA normative work | Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.2.1Work Item (AKMA)
| Yes |
Yes
| merged | No | S3‑193769 | |
S3‑193597 | Solution #15 evaluation removal of EN | Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.2.2Study (FS_AKMA)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193598 | Conclusions on Key management | Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.2.2Study (FS_AKMA)
| Yes |
YesBT: This is important that application key outlives the root anchor. Supports the evaluation.
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193599 | AKMA architecture reference model | Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.2.1Work Item (AKMA)
| Yes |
Yes
| merged | No | S3‑193771 | |
S3‑193600 | AKMA Key hierarchy | Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.2.1Work Item (AKMA)
| Yes |
YesThere is a competing proposal in S3-193469
Orange: Correct names based on agreements- text in S3-193469 is not correct as it talks about AKMA authentication
QC: Just show the derivation of K_AUSF and reference TS 33.401 for the rest of the derivations.
| revised | No | S3‑193772 | |
S3‑193601 | Existing authentication procedure lacking PFS property | Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.14Study on authentication enhancements in 5GS (FS_AUTH_ENH)
| Yes |
YesOrange: what is the problem
E//: PFS is the problem
CMCC: agree with E//, enhance the authentication, solve the issue if long term key is leaked, could revise auth protocol, or do something else to prevent long term key leakage
BT: balance between prevention, detection and response
Huawei: support E// paper, in security requirerment remove "if", or say provide forward security
DCM: need to see whether this is worth it considering the data is only protected over the air
Thales: decision already some meetings ago not to study
BT: need to document whether or not it is worth it.
Show of hands who supports this key issue: CMCC, BT, Aple, E//, Huawei, ZTE, Nokia; objects: Thales, Orange
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193602 | Correction of conclusion for Key Issue #1 | Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193603 | New Solution: Protection of the whole RRCResumeRequest message | Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
YesApple: support this solution
Huawei: missing disadvantage, like increase in length, or processing
E//: put in a ednote?
Huawei: straight forward: disadvantage: increase of processing timei
DCM: make this an ed note, because it is not clear that copying IEs adn running hash over a shorter message has overhead of copying
QC: mixed deployments between R15 and R16 in network and with UEs. Ed Note: the impact of working with legacy UEs and base stations are ffs
Orange: not have evaluation this time, because of ed notes.
remove evaluation, add ed note in solution details.
| revised | No | S3‑193753 | |
S3‑193604 | Way forward for KI#1 against tampering of RRCResumeRequest messages | Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193605 | Way forward for KI#3 with respect to handover to a False basestation | Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193606 | Way forward for KI#4 on protection against SON poisoning | Ericsson | discussion | Endorsement |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
YesApple: support this way forward
E//: could send an LS to SA5 that measurements could be untrustworthy
Orange: not from this meeting, need to discuss internally
QC: we previously discussed about measurements reports, make it generic, not only false base station
Futurewei: what do we expect SA5 to do with this
E//: take this into account
Futurewei: how should they know that the report was falsified
Orange: it may be more generic than false base station, look more closely before deciding on what and whether to send
QC: keep LS generic if sent from next meeting, the 2nd proposal in presentation was to have no normative work
E//: not put in that proposal because of what SA5 could respond
Apple: can there be an agreement to send an LS, so bring LS directly, so we can focus on content.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193607 | Way forward for KI#5 mitigation against authentication relay. | Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193608 | Way forward for KI#6 about the resistance to radio jamming | Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
YesQC: add because it can't be addressed by SA3, include reason
no objections to the conclusion, just add the reason.
| revised | No | S3‑193837 | |
S3‑193609 | Way forward for KI#7 about the protection against Man-in-the-Middle false basestation attacks | Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
YesQC: need to evaluate solutions for this one
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193610 | New solution (SERSI SERving network controlled SI signatures). | Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
YesQC: this is just duplicating existing solution, so note
Apple: support solution
Samsung: key difference is including PCI and freq in signature, therefore merge into exisiting solution
QC: fine in principle, but bring this to next meeting
chaiir: try to avoid in next meeting
QC: ok
make into pCR of solution 7, figure and explanation
Orange: what changes in the evalution
QC: keep evaluation out.
E//. then agree on somtething for next meeting
DCM: make pcr adding PCI and DLfreq are input to signature in solution details of solution 7, add ed note to evaluation that impact of new inputs is ffs.
this is agreed.
| revised | No | S3‑193755 | |
S3‑193611 | DraftCR Security handling for IAB | Ericsson | draftCR | Approval |
5.15.1Work Item (NR_IAB_Sec)
| Yes |
YesQC: prefer Samsung proposal
Nokia: need some merger, start with Samsung proposal
Nokia: there is no IAB network, it is an IAB node
QC: diagram shows IAB architecture, not security architecture
QC: approach is model after SNPN, disagree with that approach, prefer the main clauses of 501 and 401
offline, merge into 808
Todor: no coontent from was taken from 611
Samsung: correct
| merged | No | S3‑193808 | |
S3‑193612 | Clarification on identities in TLS and token-based authorization | Ericsson | discussion | Endorsement |
5.1.2Study (FS_SBA-Sec)
| Yes |
YesHuawei: Does not agree with proposal - need to know how to allocate instnace Id and certificate first
DCM: How would this work for scenario D? Does SECOP have NF instance IDs that it would use as transport IDs
Eri: Do you mean that SECOP case is not covered?
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193613 | Clarification on delegated subscribe-notify | Ericsson | discussion | Endorsement |
5.1.2Study (FS_SBA-Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193614 | LS on token-based authorization for indirect communication with delegated discovery (Scenario D) | Ericsson | LS out | Approval |
5.1.2Study (FS_SBA-Sec)
| Yes |
YesSome comments given in offline e-mail discussion
Nok: Update the question to SA2 and additional questions needed.
| revised | No | S3‑193724 | |
S3‑193615 | Implementation of agreed change from SA3#96 | Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.1.2Study (FS_SBA-Sec)
| Yes |
Yesit is missing implementation from the last meeting.
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193616 | Update to conclusion on Key issue #22: Authorization of NF service access in indirect communication | Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.1.2Study (FS_SBA-Sec)
| Yes |
YesWait for SA2 response LS to S3-193724 before progress can be made.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193617 | Update to conclusion on Key issue #23: NF to NF authentication and authorization in Indirect communication | Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.1.2Study (FS_SBA-Sec)
| Yes |
YesKept open for offline discussions
DCM: authorization may not be so static.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193618 | Conclusion of Key Issue #24 Service access authorization within a NF Set or a NF Service Set | Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.1.2Study (FS_SBA-Sec)
| Yes |
YesDCM: support this as a conclusion.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193619 | New solution for Key Issue #25 "Indirect communication in roaming scenarios" | Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.1.2Study (FS_SBA-Sec)
| Yes |
YesNokia: Sentence in intro about 'authentication between NFs in different networks is implicit by
.'
Huawei: Telescopic FQDN use requires an EN.
DCM: Got confused that SECOP is split across PLMNs - make it clear that SECOP does not span multiple PLMNs by adding a sentence.
Huwaei: Clarification needed in roaming scenarion that interface between SECOP and SEPP is a PLMN.
| revised | No | S3‑193725 | |
S3‑193620 | Conclusion for Key Issue #25 "Indirect communication in roaming scenarios" | Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.1.2Study (FS_SBA-Sec)
| Yes |
YesHuawei: Postpone due to EN on telescopic FQDN
Nok: OK to make progress even with that EN
DCM: Agree with Nokia and propose EN is added to conclusion - this was agreeable to meeting.
| revised | No | S3‑193726 | |
S3‑193621 | Conclusion of Key Issue #28: Service access authorization in the delegated "Subscribe-Notify" scenarios | Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.1.2Study (FS_SBA-Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193622 | Resource Level Authorization using Access Tokens | Ericsson | draftCR | Approval |
5.1.1Work Item (SBA_Sec)
| Yes |
YesHuawei: Concened that there may be SA2 impacts and would like to postpone document.
Eri: How is the UDR impacted.
Huawei: EN on SA2 impact and UDR study may affect this.
Nok: Solution is overloading scope
DCM: Not clear on what is being mandated.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193623 | TLS certificates for SBA: profile and provisioning | Ericsson | discussion | Endorsement |
6Any Other Business
| Yes |
YesCMCC: not to include provisioning in study
Huawei: without provisioning, the solution is already in eSBA
QC: is this also for RAN, or only core?
E//: this is core netowrk only
QC: useful to include gNB in scope for certificate enrolment
Nokia: profile needs to be defined, especially in virtual environment, profile in R16, provisioning in R17
BT: revocation and deprovisioning needs to included
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193624 | Authorization using Access Tokens based on NF-Subtype | Ericsson | draftCR | Approval |
5.1.1Work Item (SBA_Sec)
| Yes |
YesNok: No key issue so should not have a solution until this is agreed
Huawei: Concerns raised for S3-193622 apply here.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193625 | Conclusion for Key Issue #5 "NF-NF Authorization" | Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.1.2Study (FS_SBA-Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193626 | Evaluation update for Solution #25 | Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.1.2Study (FS_SBA-Sec)
| Yes |
YesHuawei: Do not agree with the proposed evaluation
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193627 | Draft CR: UP security policy for URLLC | Ericsson | draftCR | Approval |
5.8Security for 5G URLLC (5G_URLLC_SEC)
| Yes |
YesHuawei: OK with 2nd modification - 1st modification adds redundant text
Nok: Agree with Huawei
DCM: consider the normative language in the document
| revised | No | S3‑193701 | |
S3‑193628 | Discussion Paper for Security of Performance Measurement Function Protocol | Apple Computer Trading Co. Ltd | discussion | Agreement |
4Incoming LS
| Yes |
YesNokia: all UP is integrity protected between UE and BS, so do we need more protection
Apple: UP IP protection is good to have, but discussion is about whether, not how
Nokia: protocol needs protection, but no further protectino is required. It is already protected. But no reply is required in this meeting
Noamen: this was flagged as urgent
QC: no additional security required. disagree with Apple discussion paper
Apple: UP IP is optional. CT1 is only asking about problems, not about solution
QC: LS should say we don't need additional security
Huawei: no additional security is required
DCM: respond: UP IP will be sufficitent
E//: agree with QC that IP will not address all problems.
Apple: PMF protocol needs to be protected
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193629 | New SID on EPS AKA and EAP-AKA privacy enhancement in EPS | Apple, Google, AT&T, Verizon UK Ltd, Accuris Networks, Charter Communications, Cablelabs, Article19, Sprint, Comcast, Broadcom | SID new | Approval |
6Any Other Business
| Yes |
YesCMCC: does not support this
QC: is for R17, was already studied in R15, so why should be possible now
Nokia: shouldn't be started because it would waste time
BT: explicitly look at migration strategy and bid down prevention
Orange: in places talking about authentication method, talk about the access, from where to where should the IMSI be concealed.
| noted | No | S3‑193510 | |
S3‑193630 | ARPF Deployment models | Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.17Study on storage and transport of the security parameters in a 5GC, that are used by the ARPF for Authentication (FS_5GC_sec_storage_transport)
| Yes |
YesNok: Do not think that the level of detail is needed for this TR
BT: Think it is useful so suggets putting in an Annex
KPN: Agree that is should go there
TI: Some content should go in but does not fit with skeleton
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193631 | Trusted access key hierarchy | Ericsson | draftCR | Approval |
5.4Security of the Wireless and Wireline Convergence for the 5G system architecture (5WWC_SEC)
| Yes |
YesHuawei: this is not the agreement in TR, additional argument is required why is this required.
E//: makes mobility easier
Lenovo: what kind of mobility
E//: between TNAPs.
BT: What are TNAP keys for: different devices, or different versions (updates) of keys in the same ME.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193632 | Trusted access key derivation | Ericsson | draftCR | Approval |
5.4Security of the Wireless and Wireline Convergence for the 5G system architecture (5WWC_SEC)
| Yes |
YesHuawei: related to 631
offline discussions, to be taken back next time.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193633 | Subscriber privacy for wireline access | Ericsson | draftCR | Approval |
5.4Security of the Wireless and Wireline Convergence for the 5G system architecture (5WWC_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193634 | Security Parameter Storage | Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.17Study on storage and transport of the security parameters in a 5GC, that are used by the ARPF for Authentication (FS_5GC_sec_storage_transport)
| Yes |
YesKPN: Confused about the limiting the storage in this contribution - move text in scenario C to model B and remove text about model A as out of scope
TI: realtionship between the various parameters need to be clarified
Nok: Clause 4.2.1 should not be included as it is the wrong part of TR
DCM: Part of 4.2.1 is wrong
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193635 | Clarification to the usage of Kausf for solution #2.2 in TR 33.846 | China Mobile | pCR | Approval |
5.14Study on authentication enhancements in 5GS (FS_AUTH_ENH)
| Yes |
YesNokia: how can KAUSF work on the failed procedure.
Orange: if there is no previous KAUSF, then there is no protection, add ed note: security of using KAUSF=0 is FFS
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193636 | Discussion on the SUPI guessing attack | China Mobile | discussion | Discussion |
5.14Study on authentication enhancements in 5GS (FS_AUTH_ENH)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193637 | Key issue to mitigate the SUCI guessing attacks in TR 33.846 | China Mobile | pCR | Approval |
5.14Study on authentication enhancements in 5GS (FS_AUTH_ENH)
| Yes |
YesDCM: how to deal with threats that we decided to be not relevant
Orange: agree, maybe remove threats and requirements
E//: same problem, keep threat, add editor's note
Nokia: can'T determine on individual SUPI
DCM: ed note: impact of threat is FFS
Orange: have threat: the attacker is able to determine whether a SUPI belongs to a given network, + ed note
ed note, Orange's sentence on threat, remove requirements - FFS
| revised | No | S3‑193810 | |
S3‑193638 | Clarifying GVNP model of type 2 | China Mobile | pCR | Approval |
5.9Study on SECAM and SCAS for 3GPP virtualized network products (FS_VNP_SECAM_SCAS)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193639 | Adding description for Generic virtualized network product model of type 3 | China Mobile | pCR | Approval |
5.9Study on SECAM and SCAS for 3GPP virtualized network products (FS_VNP_SECAM_SCAS)
| Yes |
YesBT: in hardware sectino, hardware is not necessarily COTS, maybe in telecoms it is remove that sentence
E//: add the same editors note as on type 1 and 2., add ed note which ETSI specifications are being referred to
Nokia: on hardware change description of picture: "hardware layer in addition to 3GPP", following sentence:VNF -> VNFC, add word "layer" in hardware.
Remove last sentence in clause x.4, ed note under teh diagram, and ed note for reference, + Nokia changes.
Nokia: more comments offline.
| revised | No | S3‑193786 | |
S3‑193640 | Adding Generic assets and threats of GVNP for type 1 into clause 5.2.3.b | China Mobile | pCR | Approval |
5.9Study on SECAM and SCAS for 3GPP virtualized network products (FS_VNP_SECAM_SCAS)
| Yes |
YesNokia: ed ntoe about moving this to 900 series TR
CMCC: need to finalize this first, then move over
Nokia: ok
BT: .b.2.3: say that there are two "relevant" interfaces, because more are defined; b.2.10, list identical to no virtual system, virtualization layer threats need to added, add editor's note
keep open for offline
| revised | No | S3‑193787 | |
S3‑193641 | Adding Generic assets and threats of GVNP for type 2 into clause 5.2.3.c | China Mobile | pCR | Approval |
5.9Study on SECAM and SCAS for 3GPP virtualized network products (FS_VNP_SECAM_SCAS)
| Yes |
YesBT: this needs more work to defferentiate from nomral scas, but ok to put in.
E//: reference etc. as for 640
goes offline
| revised | No | S3‑193831 | |
S3‑193642 | Adding Generic assets and threats of GVNP for type 3 into clause 5.2.3.d | China Mobile | pCR | Approval |
5.9Study on SECAM and SCAS for 3GPP virtualized network products (FS_VNP_SECAM_SCAS)
| Yes |
Yes
| revised | No | S3‑193832 | |
S3‑193643 | Adding security requirements into clause 5.2.4 | China Mobile | pCR | Approval |
5.9Study on SECAM and SCAS for 3GPP virtualized network products (FS_VNP_SECAM_SCAS)
| Yes |
YesNokia: in diagram, ETSI defines GR, GS not TR, TS; in 5.2.4.2. not define a new catalogue, but have it as extension
CMCC: can't change figure now, ed ntoe instead
BT: replace specified in 5.2.4.2 for identified, as TR doesn't specify
ed note to revise figure to change TR and TS to GR and GS for; rephrase first para of 5.2.4.2 to make it into extension instead of addition
| revised | No | S3‑193833 | |
S3‑193644 | applying TR33.818 with new 3GPP_TS-TR_Template | China Mobile | draft TR | Approval |
5.9Study on SECAM and SCAS for 3GPP virtualized network products (FS_VNP_SECAM_SCAS)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193645 | Meeting minutes of VNP_SECAM_SCAS conference call on 25th September | China Mobile | discussion | Information |
5.9Study on SECAM and SCAS for 3GPP virtualized network products (FS_VNP_SECAM_SCAS)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193646 | UPIP: update of solution #7 and addition of evaluation | Ericsson | pCR |
5.12Study on User Plane Integrity Protection (FS_UP_IP_Sec)
| Yes |
YesQC: Please the impacted elements to the evaluation and also an EN on consideration of mixed deployments where some elements are upgraded
Nok: Why do we need an indication if this mandatory for Rel-16 Ues
QC: There are multiple ways of indicating this capability of which this is one
| revised | No | S3‑193697 | ||
S3‑193647 | Privacy Aspects of ARPF deployment | Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.17Study on storage and transport of the security parameters in a 5GC, that are used by the ARPF for Authentication (FS_5GC_sec_storage_transport)
| Yes |
YesNok: remove last paragraph and shift 3rd paragraph to become 2nd paragraph
| revised | No | S3‑193748 | |
S3‑193648 | draft LS to SA2 on the procedure of Secondary authentication | China Mobile Com. Corporation | LS out |
5.6.1Work Item (eNS_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| withdrawn | Yes | |||
S3‑193649 | Add Clarifications to the Scope of Accreditation for 3GPP VNPs | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | pCR | Approval |
5.9Study on SECAM and SCAS for 3GPP virtualized network products (FS_VNP_SECAM_SCAS)
| Yes |
YesCMCC: About EN, do we need to send an LS to the GSMA - maybe from next meeting
Eri: Why accreditation process does not need to be used
Nok: If consenus, then not needed as previously agreed
Huawei: Can remove accreditatio process part
Nok: Sentence the same in current SECAM specifications
Eri: GSMA is saying that ISO accreditation in needed
Taken offline to discuss that part only.
Nokia: ok to delete the added sentence in Scope
Sentence is to be removed "The same applies ... Desires".
| revised | No | S3‑193849 | |
S3‑193650 | Add Clarifications to Ultimate Output of SECAM Evaluation | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | pCR | Approval |
5.9Study on SECAM and SCAS for 3GPP virtualized network products (FS_VNP_SECAM_SCAS)
| Yes |
YesCMCC: Concerned specifications not known
Hua: Agree with concern
Hua: Believe the evidence is required and sentence on no evidence should not be added
BT: Thought that the idea was for vendor to get their equipment checked
CMCC: There are two ways that SECAM can work two ways
DCM: Agree that sentence should not be added
| revised | No | S3‑193780 | |
S3‑193651 | Add Clarifications to 3GPP virtualized network product evaluation process | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | pCR | Approval |
5.9Study on SECAM and SCAS for 3GPP virtualized network products (FS_VNP_SECAM_SCAS)
| Yes |
YesBT: May want to consider this as a certification scheme due to Cybersecurity act - propose to change the sentence on 'out of scope of SECAM'.
Hua: first change change to may makes it optional which not sure is correct
| revised | No | S3‑193782 | |
S3‑193652 | Add Clarifications to Roles in SECAM for 3GPP virtualized network products | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | pCR | Approval |
5.9Study on SECAM and SCAS for 3GPP virtualized network products (FS_VNP_SECAM_SCAS)
| Yes |
YesHuawei: oshould say other SDO than applicable in diagram
Nokia: discussion with CMCC: leave out other SDO
DCM: why remove other SDOs?
CMCC: other SDOs will provide requirements to 3GPP to integrate into SCAS
agreement: only change diagram.
E//: why is the half sentence added.
Nokia: complete sentence, GSMA is curerntly SECAM accreditation body.
| revised | No | S3‑193783 | |
S3‑193653 | Add Clarifications to SECAM Assurance Level for 3GPP VNPs | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | pCR | Approval |
5.9Study on SECAM and SCAS for 3GPP virtualized network products (FS_VNP_SECAM_SCAS)
| Yes |
YesNokia: offline discussion with CMCC: SECAM assutance level completely differnt from ETSI NFV levels. Remove sentence in ed note.
BT: decide on a mapping, rather than on which level.
BT: the editor's note needs to be deleted or braought back. mapping is not possible, because NFV assumes starting from bottom (hardware), but SECAM doesn't do that. so delete references to NFV assurance levels.
second paragraph on clause 4.8.1 removed, delete editor's note in 4.8.2
| revised | No | S3‑193784 | |
S3‑193654 | UICC removal from IAB-node | THALES | pCR | Approval |
5.15.2Study (FS_NR_IAB_Sec)
| Yes |
YesDCM: a bit like a solution, but threats are valid
QC: question whether threats exist in case same key is used
E//: first sentence sounds like IAB always conatins UICC
DCM: if no UICC is used, then key could be stolen in a different way
offline try to merge into 793
| merged | No | S3‑193793 | |
S3‑193655 | Add Clarifications to Security Baseline for 3GPP VNPs | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | pCR | Approval |
5.9Study on SECAM and SCAS for 3GPP virtualized network products (FS_VNP_SECAM_SCAS)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193656 | Add Clarifications to SCAS documents structure and content | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | pCR | Approval |
5.9Study on SECAM and SCAS for 3GPP virtualized network products (FS_VNP_SECAM_SCAS)
| Yes |
YesBT: if the direction is to reduce the testing to teh virtual product, then this decision is too early.
Huawei: currently prefer to work directly in 33.926.
Nokia: the decision is not made
BT: but then they are identical for teh NFs to the self contained products.
DCM: note document?
CMCC: remove the contentious paragraph in 5.1
remove added paragraph in 5.1
| revised | No | S3‑193785 | |
S3‑193657 | Add Clarifications to generic virtualized network product model description | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | pCR | Approval |
5.9Study on SECAM and SCAS for 3GPP virtualized network products (FS_VNP_SECAM_SCAS)
| Yes |
YesCMCC: what is the reference [x]?
Nokia: will include missing reference
CMCC: name of local logical interface, change to execution interface
Nokia: maybe rename to execution environment interface
DCM: please provide definitino for next time
| revised | No | S3‑193834 | |
S3‑193658 | Nokia comments on CT1 LS C1-195199 | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | discussion | Endorsement |
5.3.1Work Item (CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193659 | pCR to TR33.853 on Migration paths for network deployment | NTT DOCOMO INC. | pCR | Approval |
5.12Study on User Plane Integrity Protection (FS_UP_IP_Sec)
| Yes |
YesApple: Don't believe the key issue is in scope of the TR
DCM: Ignoring this will mean that we will end up with something that will not be deployed
Nokia: Second point in particular had architectural impacts
DCM: Proposed text is an 'or' as there are multiple ways to do this
Huawei: Requirements are very solution specific - is it possible to reword them
BT: Supportive of this contribution as it covers the network constraints
Orange: Also supportive of this proposal
Apple: Are these really criteria for evaluation of each solution
DCM: The threats are raising security concerns
QC: Don't understand the requirements
Chair asked for who objects to the key issue: Phillips, Ericsson, Nokia & Huawei
Chair asked for who supports the key issue: Orange, BT, DCM & KPN.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193660 | LS on short MAC-I and ngKSI for 5G-CIoT | C1-195199 | LS in |
5.3.1Work Item (CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
Yes
| replied to | No | |||
S3‑193661 | LS on 5GS Enhanced support of OTA mechanism for UICC configuration parameter update | C4-193790 | LS in |
4Incoming LS
| Yes |
YesNokia: no special security required
DCM: agree
Orange: if OTA keys go into new platform or stay in OTA platform. Put this in reply LS
Thales: keys should stay in OTA platform, only authorized NFs should be able to use this interface.
Nokia: noone wants to move the keys.
Orange: for operators without OTA gateways, where are the keys.
| replied to | No | |||
S3‑193662 | LS on SUCI computation from an NSI | CP-192262 | LS in |
5.10.1Work Item (Vertical_LAN_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| postponed | No | |||
S3‑193663 | PEI for FN-RG Recommendation | BBF | LS in |
5.4Security of the Wireless and Wireline Convergence for the 5G system architecture (5WWC_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | |||
S3‑193664 | General Status of Work | BBF | LS in |
5.4Security of the Wireless and Wireline Convergence for the 5G system architecture (5WWC_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | |||
S3‑193665 | LS on NR V2X Security for user plane data and PDCP SN size | R2-1911681 | LS in |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| replied to | No | |||
S3‑193666 | Reply to LS on Impersonation Attacks in 4G Networks | R2-1911819 | LS in |
5.12Study on User Plane Integrity Protection (FS_UP_IP_Sec)
| Yes |
YesNok: should full rate by supported from Rel-16
QC: Full-rate can be supported for Rel-15 UEs
Samsung: Need non-full rate in Rel-16 for some Ues
QC: It is a product and not a standards issue
Orange: Need to specify full rate
| noted | No | |||
S3‑193667 | Reply LS on protection of PC5-RRC messages for sidelink unicast communication | R2-1911863 | LS in |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | |||
S3‑193668 | Reply LS on LTE-M identification in 5GC | R3-194748 | LS in |
5.3.1Work Item (CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | |||
S3‑193669 | LS on the IAB-indication to core network | R3-194787 | LS in |
5.15.1Work Item (NR_IAB_Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | |||
S3‑193670 | N9HR Regulatory Obligations | S3i190548 | LS in |
4Incoming LS
| Yes |
Yes
| postponed | No | |||
S3‑193671 | New WID: Security Aspects of PARLOS | SPRINT Corporation | WID new | Discussion |
6Any Other Business
| Yes |
Yesorange: normative or informative
Sprint: no decision in the WID, but in TR
agreement: whether this is captured in an informative or normative annex is FFS.
E//: also wants to support, comment acronym
Supporting: E//; Samsung, T-Mobile
| endorsed | No | ||
S3‑193672 | New WID for User Plane Gateway Function for the Inter-PLMN Security | Juniper Networks | WID new | Agreement |
6Any Other Business
| Yes |
YesThere was discussion on the location of the UPF, i.e whether it is co-located etc.
DCM: had discussion previously and concluded that it was different function as it doe not terminate the interface - coloaction is then a deployment option
Chair: ask if anyone is against the split
BT: would rather keep them together
Chair: explained that it was due to part of the work following SA2 and UP gateway part being standalone
Juniper: It is a clean separation of the work item
It is generally agreed that should be a split
Taken offline for discussion of an objective
| revised | No | S3‑193718 | |
S3‑193673 | Comments to Draft for proposed structure for network slice security procedures in S3-193394 | InterDigital Communications | other | Approval |
5.6.1Work Item (eNS_SEC)
| Yes |
Yespart of offline discussion
Nokia: is anybody objecting these clarification
E//: prefers to start with normal flow before looking at optimization
for offline discussion
Nokia: only up to step 5 has been discussed, see 738, so no decision on the steps in this doc.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193674 | Comments to Evaluation for Solution 11 in S3-193396 | InterDigital Communications | other | Approval |
5.6.2Study (FS_eNS_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193675 | Nokia comments on S3-193412 | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | pCR | Approval |
5.6.2Study (FS_eNS_SEC)
| Yes |
YesHuawei does not agree with proposed Ens
Eri: OK with solution update and ENs going forward
Agreed to take only the first EN.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193676 | Nokia comments on S3-193517 | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | pCR | Approval |
5.6.2Study (FS_eNS_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193677 | Nokia comments on S3-193417 | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | pCR | Approval |
5.6.2Study (FS_eNS_SEC)
| Yes |
YesNokia: prefer 417
Huawei: no time to work on this offline at this meeting, but agree with nokias comments
IDCC: some solutions need more details to be evaluated
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193678 | Update to conclusion on Key issue #22: Authorization of NF service access in indirect communication | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | pCR | Approval |
5.1.2Study (FS_SBA-Sec)
| Yes |
YesWait for SA2 response LS to S3-193724 before progress can be made.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193679 | Solution #4: Details on hash algorithm used for MIB/SIB hashes. | Huawei, HiSilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
YesQC: why use HMAC when not using key
DCM: use SHA 256
E//: ok
rewrite to use SHA256.
| revised | No | S3‑193756 | S3‑193333 |
S3‑193680 | LS on security consideration of performance measurement function protocol | C1-196940 | LS in | discussion |
4Incoming LS
| Yes |
Yes
| postponed | No | ||
S3‑193681 | Agenda | WG Chair | agenda | - |
2Approval of Agenda and Meeting Objectives
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193300 | |
S3‑193682 | Reply to: LS on 5GS Enhanced support of OTA mechanism for UICC configuration parameter update | Nokia | LS out | approval |
4Incoming LS
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193683 | LS on security consideration of performance measurement function protocol | ZTE Corporation | LS out | Approval |
4Incoming LS
| Yes |
YesApple: UP IP is required, should be included in LS
CMCC: consensus is need integrity protection, does not mention other things, no other security mechanism is needed
DCM: no new mechanism is required but including integrity protection is required.
| revised | No | S3‑193816 | |
S3‑193684 | living doc for 5WWC | Huawei, Hisilicon | draftCR | Approval |
5.4Security of the Wireless and Wireline Convergence for the 5G system architecture (5WWC_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193479 | |
S3‑193685 | Solution for trusted non-3GPP access | Lenovo, Motorola Mobility | draftCR | Approval |
5.4Security of the Wireless and Wireline Convergence for the 5G system architecture (5WWC_SEC)
| Yes |
YesEN added for figure to be changed next time
| approved | No | S3‑193550 | |
S3‑193686 | Security for Wireline access to 5G - General | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | draftCR | Endorsement |
5.4Security of the Wireless and Wireline Convergence for the 5G system architecture (5WWC_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193379 | |
S3‑193687 | Authentication for 5G-RG | Huawei, Hisilicon | draftCR | Approval |
5.4Security of the Wireless and Wireline Convergence for the 5G system architecture (5WWC_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193480 | |
S3‑193688 | Authentication for FN-RG | Huawei, Hisilicon | draftCR | Approval |
5.4Security of the Wireless and Wireline Convergence for the 5G system architecture (5WWC_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193481 | |
S3‑193689 | Security of the interface between W-5GAN and 5GC | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | draftCR | Endorsement |
5.4Security of the Wireless and Wireline Convergence for the 5G system architecture (5WWC_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193383 | |
S3‑193690 | Solution on 5GC access from WLAN UEs that do not support NAS | Lenovo, Motorola Mobility | draftCR | Approval |
5.4Security of the Wireless and Wireline Convergence for the 5G system architecture (5WWC_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193551 | |
S3‑193691 | Proposal to solve ED notes in solution#4: Zero-overhead user plane integrity protection on the link layer | Philips International B.V. | pCR | Approval |
5.12Study on User Plane Integrity Protection (FS_UP_IP_Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193320 | |
S3‑193692 | Proposed Solution for key issue #6 | Qualcomm Incorporated | pCR | Approval |
5.12Study on User Plane Integrity Protection (FS_UP_IP_Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193393 | |
S3‑193693 | Draft TR 33.853 | NTT DOCOMO INC. | draft TR | Approval |
5.12Study on User Plane Integrity Protection (FS_UP_IP_Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193694 | Solution to key issue#5 in UP IP | Apple | pCR | Approval |
5.12Study on User Plane Integrity Protection (FS_UP_IP_Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193509 | |
S3‑193695 | Resolving Editors Note in Solution #1 | Samsung | pCR | - |
5.12Study on User Plane Integrity Protection (FS_UP_IP_Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193579 | |
S3‑193696 | Add the Evaluation to Solution 5 in TR 33.853 | China Mobile | pCR | - |
5.12Study on User Plane Integrity Protection (FS_UP_IP_Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193580 | |
S3‑193697 | UPIP: update of solution #7 and addition of evaluation | Ericsson | pCR | - |
5.12Study on User Plane Integrity Protection (FS_UP_IP_Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193646 | |
S3‑193698 | Proposed conclusion for 5G RAN connected to 5GC | Qualcomm Incorporated | pCR | Approval |
5.12Study on User Plane Integrity Protection (FS_UP_IP_Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193369 | |
S3‑193699 | draftCR for URLLC | Huawei, Hisilicon | draftCR | Approval |
5.8Security for 5G URLLC (5G_URLLC_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193476 | |
S3‑193700 | change introduction to align with URLLC architect | Huawei, Hisilicon | draftCR | Approval |
5.8Security for 5G URLLC (5G_URLLC_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193477 | |
S3‑193701 | Draft CR: UP security policy for URLLC | Ericsson | draftCR | Approval |
5.8Security for 5G URLLC (5G_URLLC_SEC)
| Yes |
YesNokia: disagree with preconfiguration, nonode should be preconfigured
Huawei: not agree with first change, this has a new comment by Nokia, prefer to note this time
Nokia: align with SA2, no point in putting some random statement, policy comes from SMF
E//: ed note to check with RAN2 internaly
revert back to plenary agreements
| revised | No | S3‑193848 | S3‑193627 |
S3‑193702 | Draft CR as a living baseline for 5GS LCS normative work | Ericsson LM | draftCR | Approval |
5.7Security of the enhancement to the 5GC location services (eLCS_Sec)
| Yes |
YesDCM: copy last two ed notes inito WLAN as well.
| revised | No | S3‑193847 | S3‑193563 |
S3‑193703 | draft TR 33.861 | Ericsson | draft TR | Approval |
5.3.2Study (FS_CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
Yes
| left for email approval | No | ||
S3‑193704 | Protection of UE capability transfer for UEs without AS security | Intel | pCR | - |
5.3.2Study (FS_CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
YesE//: disagree with security requirements
QC: what is the proposal
E//: more about persistance of capabilities
QC: then it is a security problem
Nokia: agree with E//, so security is not as strong as other devices.
| revised | No | S3‑193843 | S3‑193437 |
S3‑193705 | Editorial correction of format | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | draftCR | Agreement |
5.10.1Work Item (Vertical_LAN_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193529 | |
S3‑193706 | CR Interworking between NPN and PLMN | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | draftCR | Agreement |
5.10.1Work Item (Vertical_LAN_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193531 | |
S3‑193707 | CR Annex 5GLAN | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | draftCR | Agreement |
5.10.1Work Item (Vertical_LAN_SEC)
| Yes |
YesHuawei: what is the authentication mechanisms
DCM: shall be used, not are
Huawei: formatting, should this be under same Annex
Nokia: no, same study: different topic
Huawei: ed note: which authentication mechanism
QC: not only auth mechanism, but also SMC, etc.ed note about all security procedures.
Nokia: delete second paragraph,
DCM: acronyms need to be added, refernce to IEEE TSN to be added
tdoc name of revision had to be changed to reflect content
| approved | No | S3‑193532 | |
S3‑193708 | draft TR 33.819 | Nokia | draft TR | Approval |
5.10.2Study (FS_Vertical_LAN_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193709 | Solution for protection of time synchronization | Huawei, Hisilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.10.2Study (FS_Vertical_LAN_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193465 | |
S3‑193710 | LS on Signalling overload due to malicious Applications on UE | KPN | LS out | Approval |
5.3.2Study (FS_CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
YesBT: include security concerns and tracking
E//: no reference to the solutions in our TR
QC: remove the reference about normative texts
Huawei: it is no normative work *in SA3*.
| revised | No | S3‑193844 | |
S3‑193711 | CIOT: Conclusion on KI #5 | Ericsson Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell, Qualcomm Incorporated, Samsung | pCR | Approval |
5.3.2Study (FS_CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193540 | |
S3‑193712 | CIOT: Proposed conclusion to KI#7 | Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.3.2Study (FS_CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193544 | |
S3‑193713 | CIOT: Proposed_conclusion_KI_8 | Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.3.2Study (FS_CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193546 | |
S3‑193714 | CIOT: Conclusion for KI#12 | Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.3.2Study (FS_CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193549 | |
S3‑193715 | Reply to: LS on short MAC-I and ngKSI for 5G-CIoT | Ericsson | LS out | approval |
5.3.1Work Item (CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193716 | DraftCR - Proposed skeleton for supporting 5G CIoT [Living Document] | Ericsson | other | Approval |
5.3.1Work Item (CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193562 | |
S3‑193717 | CIoT_ Modifications to draft CR | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell, Ericsson | other | Approval |
5.3.1Work Item (CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193392 | |
S3‑193718 | New WID for User Plane Gateway Function for the Inter-PLMN Security | Juniper Networks | WID new | Agreement |
6Any Other Business
| Yes |
YesNeeds to be re-submitted fro agreement in Reno meeting
| endorsed | No | S3‑193672 | |
S3‑193719 | Security requirements for SeCoP | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | draftCR | Endorsement |
5.1.1Work Item (SBA_Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193387 | |
S3‑193720 | Security requirements for UP Gateway Function | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | draftCR | Endorsement |
5.1.1Work Item (SBA_Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193428 | |
S3‑193721 | Authentication and authorization between SeCoP and network functions | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | draftCR | Endorsement |
5.1.1Work Item (SBA_Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193388 | |
S3‑193722 | Authentication and authorization between SeCoPs | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | draftCR | Endorsement |
5.1.1Work Item (SBA_Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193389 | |
S3‑193723 | Protection of N9 interface in Inter-PLMN scenario | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell, Juniper | draftCR | Endorsement |
5.1.1Work Item (SBA_Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193423 | |
S3‑193724 | LS on token-based authorization for indirect communication with delegated discovery (Scenario D) | Ericsson | LS out | Approval |
5.1.2Study (FS_SBA-Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193614 | |
S3‑193725 | New solution for Key Issue #25 "Indirect communication in roaming scenarios" | Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.1.2Study (FS_SBA-Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193619 | |
S3‑193726 | Conclusion for Key Issue #25 "Indirect communication in roaming scenarios" | Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.1.2Study (FS_SBA-Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193620 | |
S3‑193727 | eSBA: add conclusion on KI #24 | Huawei, Hisilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.1.2Study (FS_SBA-Sec)
| No |
Yes
| withdrawn | Yes | ||
S3‑193728 | Resolving EN in TR33.855 6.18 N9 NDS/IP | Juniper Networks, NTT DoCoMo, Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.1.2Study (FS_SBA-Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193313 | |
S3‑193729 | Draft TR 33.855 | Ericsson | draft TR | Approval |
5.1.2Study (FS_SBA-Sec)
| No |
Yes
| left for email approval | No | ||
S3‑193730 | Update on solution#15 in TR 33.855 | Huawei, Hisilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.1.2Study (FS_SBA-Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193447 | |
S3‑193731 | Add Evaluation to solution 3 | Huawei, HiSilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.6.2Study (FS_eNS_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193405 | |
S3‑193732 | draft TR 33.813 | Nokia | draft TR | Approval |
5.6.2Study (FS_eNS_SEC)
| No |
Yes
| left for email approval | No | ||
S3‑193733 | LS on configuaration of security policy for NSaaS | Huawei | LS out | Approval |
5.6.2Study (FS_eNS_SEC)
| Yes |
YesOrange: no reason to send it.
Nokia: in SA2, there are many policy configuration mechanisms, let's not include yet another mechanism.
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193734 | Addressing EN in solution 6 | Huawei, HiSilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.6.2Study (FS_eNS_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193408 | |
S3‑193735 | Evaluating solution 6 | Huawei, HiSilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.6.2Study (FS_eNS_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193409 | |
S3‑193736 | Concluding KI#4 | Huawei, HiSilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.6.2Study (FS_eNS_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193410 | |
S3‑193737 | Clarification on cancellation of rejected S-NSSAIs | Lenovo, Motorola Mobility | pCR | Approval |
5.6.2Study (FS_eNS_SEC)
| Yes |
YesNokia disagree with this interpretation of key issue, should be dynamic subscription re-enablement, so beyond the study item.
Lenovo: CT1 already added ed note.
Huawei: Nokia proposal seems agreeable
| noted | No | S3‑193553 | |
S3‑193738 | draft CR for Security procedures for Network Slices | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | other | Agreement |
5.6.1Work Item (eNS_SEC)
| Yes |
YesIDCC: the steps added in 12 and 13 in 673 are copied from SA2
Nokia: start with the non-conditional cases, there is no disagreement on 673 yet
Huawei: only keep first sentence of ed note.
BT: authorization should be removed from x.x.3
QC: baseline needs a lot of improvement, not agree this as working baseline, not endorse as living CR, agree on the skeleton
Nokia keep baseline up to ed note
QC: make clear that this is just a living document.
| revised | No | S3‑193857 | S3‑193394 |
S3‑193739 | Threats and Requirements for Key Issue #8 | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | pCR | Approval |
5.13Study on Security Impacts of Virtualisation (FS_SIV)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193399 | |
S3‑193740 | Threats and Requirements for Key Issue #13 | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | pCR | Approval |
5.13Study on Security Impacts of Virtualisation (FS_SIV)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193400 | |
S3‑193741 | Threats and Requirements for Key Issue #17 | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | pCR | Approval |
5.13Study on Security Impacts of Virtualisation (FS_SIV)
| Yes |
YesOrange: avoid requirements on actor's, requirements on parts of infrastructure
BT: replace by 3GPP network
Orange: ok
DCM: still unclear
BT: then delete first requirement, remove "by the operator" from third requirement
Nokia: add catalogue to third requirement
remove fist req, add catalogue to third, remove by the operator.
| revised | No | S3‑193828 | S3‑193418 |
S3‑193742 | TR 33.848 Security Threats and Requirements for Key Issue 16 (resubmission of S3-192558) | NCSC | pCR | Approval |
5.13Study on Security Impacts of Virtualisation (FS_SIV)
| No |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193372 | |
S3‑193743 | Threats and Requirements for Key Issue #18 | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | pCR | Approval |
5.13Study on Security Impacts of Virtualisation (FS_SIV)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193419 | |
S3‑193744 | Draft TR 33.845 Storage of sensitive credentials in 5G systems v0.0.0 | VODAFONE Group Plc | draft TR | Approval |
5.17Study on storage and transport of the security parameters in a 5GC, that are used by the ARPF for Authentication (FS_5GC_sec_storage_transport)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193566 | |
S3‑193746 | KI on Protection of authentication subscription data stored in UDR | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | other | Approval |
5.17Study on storage and transport of the security parameters in a 5GC, that are used by the ARPF for Authentication (FS_5GC_sec_storage_transport)
| No |
Yes
| withdrawn | Yes | ||
S3‑193747 | KI on Separation of authentication subscription data from subscription data | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | other | Approval |
5.17Study on storage and transport of the security parameters in a 5GC, that are used by the ARPF for Authentication (FS_5GC_sec_storage_transport)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193535 | |
S3‑193748 | Privacy Aspects of ARPF deployment | Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.17Study on storage and transport of the security parameters in a 5GC, that are used by the ARPF for Authentication (FS_5GC_sec_storage_transport)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193647 | |
S3‑193749 | FS_SIV TR 33.848 v030c | BT plc | pCR | Agreement |
5.13Study on Security Impacts of Virtualisation (FS_SIV)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193318 | |
S3‑193750 | Draft TR 33.848 | BT | draft TR | Approval |
5.13Study on Security Impacts of Virtualisation (FS_SIV)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193751 | TR 33.848 Scope Update | BT plc | pCR | Agreement |
5.13Study on Security Impacts of Virtualisation (FS_SIV)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193328 | |
S3‑193752 | Draft TR 33.809 | Apple | draft TR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| No |
Yes
| left for email approval | No | ||
S3‑193753 | New Solution: Protection of the whole RRCResumeRequest message | Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193603 | |
S3‑193754 | Evaluation of the shared key based MIB/SIB protection solution | Qualcomm Incorporated | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193360 | |
S3‑193755 | New solution (SERSI SERving network controlled SI signatures). | Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
YesQC: add ed note that evaluation for soultion is FFS or move evaluation ed note to clause above
Orange: add FFS to evaluation
| revised | No | S3‑193845 | S3‑193610 |
S3‑193756 | Solution #4: Details on hash algorithm used for MIB/SIB hashes. | Huawei, HiSilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193679 | |
S3‑193757 | Resolve second and third EN in Solution #6 | Huawei, HiSilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193330 | |
S3‑193758 | preventing UE from reselecting to FBS | Huawei, HiSilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| No |
Yes
| withdrawn | Yes | ||
S3‑193759 | Evaluation of solution #6 | Huawei, HiSilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193338 | |
S3‑193760 | Solution for Avoiding UE connecting to False Base Station during Conditional Handover | Huawei, Hisilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193491 | |
S3‑193761 | AKMA: Resolving the EN in AKMA push | Huawei, Hisilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.2.2Study (FS_AKMA)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193441 | |
S3‑193762 | draft TR 33.835 | China Mobile | draft TR | Approval |
5.2.2Study (FS_AKMA)
| No |
Yes
| left for email approval | No | ||
S3‑193763 | AKMA: adding the evaluation of solution #24 | Huawei, Hisilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.2.2Study (FS_AKMA)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193442 | |
S3‑193764 | Evaluation for solution22 | Huawei, Hisilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.2.2Study (FS_AKMA)
| Yes |
YesOrange: don't agree with last two sentences
QC: conclusions made, doesn't matter
agreed as it is.
| approved | No | S3‑193474 | |
S3‑193765 | Solution Key lifetimes | Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.2.2Study (FS_AKMA)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193595 | |
S3‑193766 | Update of key issue #6 | KPN | pCR | Approval |
5.2.2Study (FS_AKMA)
| No |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193340 | |
S3‑193767 | conclusion on key issue #2 | China Mobile | pCR | Approval |
5.2.2Study (FS_AKMA)
| Yes |
YesOrange: AKMA application functino will be named to application function
E//: not consistent in the TR?
Orange: Note: AKMA application function is now application function in normative work.
| revised | No | S3‑193842 | S3‑193585 |
S3‑193768 | Conclusion on key issue #5 | China Mobile | pCR | Approval |
5.2.2Study (FS_AKMA)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193586 | |
S3‑193769 | skeleton of AKMA TS | China Mobile, Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell,Ericsson | draft TS | Approval |
5.2.1Work Item (AKMA)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193582 | |
S3‑193770 | scope of AKMA TS | China Mobile, Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | pCR | Approval |
5.2.1Work Item (AKMA)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193583 | |
S3‑193771 | draft CR of AKMA architecture | China Mobile, Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | pCR | Approval |
5.2.1Work Item (AKMA)
| Yes |
YesOrange: disagree with ed note, object to collocation of AAnF with NEF
CMCC: was there before
QC: remove in parantheses?
Orange: no.
| revised | No | S3‑193841 | S3‑193584 |
S3‑193772 | AKMA Key hierarchy | Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.2.1Work Item (AKMA)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193600 | |
S3‑193773 | TR 33.848 Security Requirements for Key Issue 19 (resubmission of S3-192561) | NCSC | pCR | Approval |
5.13Study on Security Impacts of Virtualisation (FS_SIV)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | S3‑193374 | |
S3‑193774 | Threats and Requirements for Key Issue #20 | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | pCR | Approval |
5.13Study on Security Impacts of Virtualisation (FS_SIV)
| Yes |
YesDCM: protected by operators doesn't work
Orange: remove "by operator's" in requirement, no requirement on actors
update requirement
| revised | No | S3‑193829 | S3‑193420 |
S3‑193775 | Threats and Requirements for Key Issue #21 | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | pCR | Approval |
5.13Study on Security Impacts of Virtualisation (FS_SIV)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193421 | |
S3‑193776 | Threats and Requirements for Key Issue #23 | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | pCR | Approval |
5.13Study on Security Impacts of Virtualisation (FS_SIV)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193424 | |
S3‑193777 | Threats and Requirements for Key Issue #24 | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | pCR | Approval |
5.13Study on Security Impacts of Virtualisation (FS_SIV)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193425 | |
S3‑193778 | [draft] reply LS on NR V2X Security for user plane data and PDCP SN size | LG Electronics France | LS out | - |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
YesQC: include key ID, confirm LCID are input to keystreams, in Q2, add key ID, 12 bit requires faster rekeying.
| revised | No | S3‑193854 | S3‑193426 |
S3‑193779 | Conclusion for Key issue 10 | LG Electronics France | pCR | - |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
YesHuawei: postpone to next meeting, SA still has some concern, also procedure defined in SA6
| noted | No | S3‑193431 | |
S3‑193780 | Add Clarifications to Ultimate Output of SECAM Evaluation | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | pCR | Approval |
5.9Study on SECAM and SCAS for 3GPP virtualized network products (FS_VNP_SECAM_SCAS)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193650 | |
S3‑193781 | Draft TR 33.818 | China Mobile | draft TR | Approval |
5.9Study on SECAM and SCAS for 3GPP virtualized network products (FS_VNP_SECAM_SCAS)
| Yes |
Yes
| left for email approval | No | ||
S3‑193782 | Add Clarifications to 3GPP virtualized network product evaluation process | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | pCR | Approval |
5.9Study on SECAM and SCAS for 3GPP virtualized network products (FS_VNP_SECAM_SCAS)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193651 | |
S3‑193783 | Add Clarifications to Roles in SECAM for 3GPP virtualized network products | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | pCR | Approval |
5.9Study on SECAM and SCAS for 3GPP virtualized network products (FS_VNP_SECAM_SCAS)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193652 | |
S3‑193784 | Add Clarifications to SECAM Assurance Level for 3GPP VNPs | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | pCR | Approval |
5.9Study on SECAM and SCAS for 3GPP virtualized network products (FS_VNP_SECAM_SCAS)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193653 | |
S3‑193785 | Add Clarifications to SCAS documents structure and content | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | pCR | Approval |
5.9Study on SECAM and SCAS for 3GPP virtualized network products (FS_VNP_SECAM_SCAS)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193656 | |
S3‑193786 | Adding description for Generic virtualized network product model of type 3 | China Mobile | pCR | Approval |
5.9Study on SECAM and SCAS for 3GPP virtualized network products (FS_VNP_SECAM_SCAS)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193639 | |
S3‑193787 | Adding Generic assets and threats of GVNP for type 1 into clause 5.2.3.b | China Mobile | pCR | Approval |
5.9Study on SECAM and SCAS for 3GPP virtualized network products (FS_VNP_SECAM_SCAS)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193640 | |
S3‑193788 | Updates to Solution #2.1 on MT functionality | Samsung | pCR | - |
5.15.2Study (FS_NR_IAB_Sec)
| Yes |
YesThales: remove the note, sentence above should be removed, if it is a PLMN, it should AKA
Samsung ok with removing note
E//: but keep EAP TLS above
Orange: against
supporting the note and para above: Nokia, E//, Huawei, Samsung; objecting: BT, Thales, Orange
Orange: removed text also related to teh discussion
| revised | No | S3‑193851 | S3‑193565 |
S3‑193789 | Evaluation of solution #2.1 | Samsung | pCR | - |
5.15.2Study (FS_NR_IAB_Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | S3‑193567 | |
S3‑193790 | Conclusion to Key Issue#2.1 on authentication and authorization of the IAB Node (MT) | Samsung | pCR | - |
5.15.2Study (FS_NR_IAB_Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | S3‑193568 | |
S3‑193791 | Evaluation on Solution #3.1: F1 security context establishment | Qualcomm Incorporated, Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.15.2Study (FS_NR_IAB_Sec)
| No |
Yes
| withdrawn | Yes | ||
S3‑193792 | Conclusion to Key Issue#2.1 on authentication and authorization of the IAB Node (gNB-DU) | Samsung | pCR | - |
5.15.2Study (FS_NR_IAB_Sec)
| Yes |
Yesorange: from where to where IPsec is established
QC: delete last three sentences
| revised | No | S3‑193856 | S3‑193573 |
S3‑193793 | Key issue on removal of UICC card in IAB node | Huawei, Hisilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.15.2Study (FS_NR_IAB_Sec)
| Yes |
YesBT: agrees
Orange: don't include primary authenticaiton
| revised | No | S3‑193852 | S3‑193463 |
S3‑193794 | new draft TR 33.836 | LG | draft TR | Approval |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| No |
Yes
| left for email approval | No | ||
S3‑193795 | 33.836 evaluation for the Solution #1 | InterDigital Communications | pCR | Approval |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193312 | |
S3‑193796 | TR 33.836 evaluation of the solution #4 | InterDigital Communications | pCR | Approval |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193316 | |
S3‑193797 | TR 33.836 - update for solution #2 | InterDigital Communications | pCR | Approval |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193305 | |
S3‑193798 | TR 33.836 - evaluation for the solution #2 | InterDigital Communications | pCR | Approval |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193314 | |
S3‑193799 | Providing some analysis to solution #8 in TR 33.836 | Qualcomm Incorporated | pCR | Approval |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193346 | |
S3‑193800 | Solution for the activation of user plane security in NR PC5 unicast | Qualcomm Incorporated | pCR | Approval |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193351 | |
S3‑193801 | New solution for PC5 layer key derivation using the 5G network keys | Huawei, Hisilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193454 | |
S3‑193802 | LS on PC5S and PC5 RRC unicast message protection | Qualcomm | LS out | Approval |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193803 | Conclusion on privacy for groupcast and broadcast | Qualcomm Incorporated | pCR | Approval |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193343 | |
S3‑193804 | Identifier conversion in groupcast communication | Lenovo, Motorola Mobility | pCR | Approval |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193557 | |
S3‑193805 | Proposed conclusion of security for groupcast | Qualcomm Incorporated | pCR | Approval |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
YesQC: keep both group and broadcast., there is a new split key issue on groupcast and broadcast
Huawei: no normative work for groupcast *for R16*
Huawei: change title to include broadcast
| revised | No | S3‑193853 | S3‑193344 |
S3‑193806 | New Key Issue on Security of broadcast eV2X messages over PC5 | Huawei, HiSilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193324 | |
S3‑193807 | draft TR 33.824 | Samsung | draft TR | Approval |
5.15.2Study (FS_NR_IAB_Sec)
| No |
Yes
| left for email approval | No | ||
S3‑193808 | [Draft CR]Solution for IAB Architecture | Samsung | draftCR | - |
5.15.1Work Item (NR_IAB_Sec)
| Yes |
Yeswill be living document for next meeting
Orange: needs to remain as skeleton only
| approved | No | S3‑193564 | |
S3‑193809 | Notes from evening session on eNSI | Qualcomm | report | Information |
5.6.2Study (FS_eNS_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193810 | Key issue to mitigate the SUCI guessing attacks in TR 33.846 | China Mobile | pCR | Approval |
5.14Study on authentication enhancements in 5GS (FS_AUTH_ENH)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193637 | |
S3‑193811 | 33:846: mitigation against linkability attack | THALES | pCR | Approval |
5.14Study on authentication enhancements in 5GS (FS_AUTH_ENH)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193319 | |
S3‑193812 | Using MACS to provide freshness for the protection of SQN during a re-synchronisation procedure in AKA | Qualcomm Incorporated | pCR | Approval |
5.14Study on authentication enhancements in 5GS (FS_AUTH_ENH)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193356 | |
S3‑193813 | New solution for linkability attack | Huawei, Hisilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.14Study on authentication enhancements in 5GS (FS_AUTH_ENH)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193450 | |
S3‑193814 | Address the EN and add evaluation in solution 2.3 | Huawei, Hisilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.14Study on authentication enhancements in 5GS (FS_AUTH_ENH)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193460 | |
S3‑193815 | solution on AUTS derivation to protect SQN | Huawei, Hisilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.14Study on authentication enhancements in 5GS (FS_AUTH_ENH)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193459 | |
S3‑193816 | LS on security consideration of performance measurement function protocol | ZTE Corporation | LS out | Approval |
4Incoming LS
| Yes |
YesNo agreement on whether to include that exisiting mecchnaisms are sufficient
| noted | No | S3‑193683 | |
S3‑193817 | Draft TS 33.535 | China Mobile | draft TS | Approval |
5.2.1Work Item (AKMA)
| No |
Yes
| left for email approval | No | ||
S3‑193818 | Security handling in Control Plane User Datafor Control Plane Optimization for 5GS CIoT | Huawei, Hisilicon | draftCR | Approval |
5.3.1Work Item (CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193485 | |
S3‑193819 | On service request in solution 8 | Huawei, HiSilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.6.2Study (FS_eNS_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193411 | |
S3‑193820 | On Ng-RAN node change in solution 8 | Huawei, HiSilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.6.2Study (FS_eNS_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193412 | |
S3‑193821 | Resolving editors note on relationship between S-NSSAI and the S-NSSAI identifiers in solution #10 | Qualcomm Incorporated | pCR | Approval |
5.6.2Study (FS_eNS_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193355 | |
S3‑193822 | eNS_Addition to evaluation of solution 10 | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell, Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.6.2Study (FS_eNS_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193395 | |
S3‑193823 | TR 33.813 - update for the evaluation for solution #11 | InterDigital Communications | pCR | Approval |
5.6.2Study (FS_eNS_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193309 | |
S3‑193824 | eNS_Addition of evaluation to solution 11 | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell, Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.6.2Study (FS_eNS_SEC)
| No |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193396 | |
S3‑193825 | Resolving ENs of solution #12 | ZTE Corporation | pCR | Approval |
5.6.2Study (FS_eNS_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193517 | |
S3‑193826 | TR 33.819 evaluation of DH based solution for CAG ID privacy | InterDigital Communications | pCR | Approval |
5.10.2Study (FS_Vertical_LAN_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193310 | |
S3‑193827 | TR 33.819 evaluation of Hash based solution for CAG ID privacy | InterDigital Communications | pCR | Approval |
5.10.2Study (FS_Vertical_LAN_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193311 | |
S3‑193828 | Threats and Requirements for Key Issue #17 | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | pCR | Approval |
5.13Study on Security Impacts of Virtualisation (FS_SIV)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193741 | |
S3‑193829 | Threats and Requirements for Key Issue #20 | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | pCR | Approval |
5.13Study on Security Impacts of Virtualisation (FS_SIV)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193774 | |
S3‑193830 | LS on virtualization security assurance | Orange | LS out | Approval |
5.13Study on Security Impacts of Virtualisation (FS_SIV)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193831 | Adding Generic assets and threats of GVNP for type 2 into clause 5.2.3.c | China Mobile | pCR | Approval |
5.9Study on SECAM and SCAS for 3GPP virtualized network products (FS_VNP_SECAM_SCAS)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193641 | |
S3‑193832 | Adding Generic assets and threats of GVNP for type 3 into clause 5.2.3.d | China Mobile | pCR | Approval |
5.9Study on SECAM and SCAS for 3GPP virtualized network products (FS_VNP_SECAM_SCAS)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193642 | |
S3‑193833 | Adding security requirements into clause 5.2.4 | China Mobile | pCR | Approval |
5.9Study on SECAM and SCAS for 3GPP virtualized network products (FS_VNP_SECAM_SCAS)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193643 | |
S3‑193834 | Add Clarifications to generic virtualized network product model description | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | pCR | Approval |
5.9Study on SECAM and SCAS for 3GPP virtualized network products (FS_VNP_SECAM_SCAS)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193657 | |
S3‑193835 | Resolving the ENs in solution #5 | Huawei, Hisilicon, Lenovo, Motorola Mobility | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
YesDCM bring back privacy ed note
Orange ed note: further evaluation is needed.
| revised | No | S3‑193846 | S3‑193448 |
S3‑193836 | Update of Solution #15 | Lenovo, Motorola Mobility | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193555 | |
S3‑193837 | Way forward for KI#6 about the resistance to radio jamming | Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193608 | |
S3‑193838 | LS on GUTI re-allocation | Qualcomm | LS out | Approval |
5.3.2Study (FS_CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193839 | SA3 meeting calendar | WG Chair | other | Information |
6Any Other Business
| Yes |
YesIDCC: SA#100 cadjacent to independence day weekend
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193840 | draft agenda SA3#97 | WG Chair | other | Information |
6Any Other Business
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | ||
S3‑193841 | draft CR of AKMA architecture | China Mobile, Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | pCR | Approval |
5.2.1Work Item (AKMA)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193771 | |
S3‑193842 | conclusion on key issue #2 | China Mobile | pCR | Approval |
5.2.2Study (FS_AKMA)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193767 | |
S3‑193843 | Protection of UE capability transfer for UEs without AS security | Intel | pCR | - |
5.3.2Study (FS_CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193704 | |
S3‑193844 | LS on Signalling overload due to malicious Applications on UE | KPN | LS out | Approval |
5.3.2Study (FS_CIoT_sec_5G)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193710 | |
S3‑193845 | New solution (SERSI SERving network controlled SI signatures). | Ericsson | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193755 | |
S3‑193846 | Resolving the ENs in solution #5 | Huawei, Hisilicon, Lenovo, Motorola Mobility | pCR | Approval |
5.55G security enhancement against false base stations (FS_5GFBS)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193835 | |
S3‑193847 | Draft CR as a living baseline for 5GS LCS normative work | Ericsson LM | draftCR | Approval |
5.7Security of the enhancement to the 5GC location services (eLCS_Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193702 | |
S3‑193848 | Draft CR: UP security policy for URLLC | Ericsson | draftCR | Approval |
5.8Security for 5G URLLC (5G_URLLC_SEC)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193701 | |
S3‑193849 | Add Clarifications to the Scope of Accreditation for 3GPP VNPs | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | pCR | Approval |
5.9Study on SECAM and SCAS for 3GPP virtualized network products (FS_VNP_SECAM_SCAS)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193649 | |
S3‑193850 | draft TR 33.846 | Ericsson | draft TR | Approval |
5.14Study on authentication enhancements in 5GS (FS_AUTH_ENH)
| No |
Yes
| left for email approval | No | ||
S3‑193851 | Updates to Solution #2.1 on MT functionality | Samsung | pCR | - |
5.15.2Study (FS_NR_IAB_Sec)
| Yes |
YesBT: without Note, it is ok
QC: ok with this, but add *subscription* credential in yellow marked text.
| revised | No | S3‑193855 | S3‑193788 |
S3‑193852 | Key issue on removal of UICC card in IAB node | Huawei, Hisilicon | pCR | Approval |
5.15.2Study (FS_NR_IAB_Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | S3‑193793 | |
S3‑193853 | Proposed conclusion of security for groupcast | Qualcomm Incorporated | pCR | Approval |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | S3‑193805 | |
S3‑193854 | Reply to: LS on NR V2X Security for user plane data and PDCP SN size | LG | LS out | approval |
5.16Study on Security Aspects of 3GPP support for Advanced V2X Services (FS_eV2X_Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| approved | No | ||
S3‑193855 | Updates to Solution #2.1 on MT functionality | Samsung | pCR | - |
5.15.2Study (FS_NR_IAB_Sec)
| Yes |
Yes
| noted | No | S3‑193851 | |
S3‑193856 | Conclusion to Key Issue#2.1 on authentication and authorization of the IAB Node (gNB-DU) | Samsung | pCR | - |
5.15.2Study (FS_NR_IAB_Sec)
| Yes |
YesE//: not ok
| noted | No | S3‑193792 | |
S3‑193857 | draft CR for Security procedures for Network Slices | Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell | other | Agreement |
5.6.1Work Item (eNS_SEC)
| Yes |
Yesthe group agrees that all text in clause x.x.3 may need to be revised.
| approved | No | S3‑193738 |