Re: [dhcwg] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcp4o6-saddr-opt-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Fri, 12 October 2018 13:54 UTC
Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 358CC127148 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Oct 2018 06:54:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BLrJjtLyyIxd for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Oct 2018 06:54:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x12b.google.com (mail-lf1-x12b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94E6E130E21 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Oct 2018 06:54:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x12b.google.com with SMTP id g89-v6so9402410lfl.5 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Oct 2018 06:54:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=85EXhTsLjcJDUohuyMjJvbvWfQJPbDdUocQKs+otpPA=; b=RftqvZLYt+Dk7EDityWEz+QpKb6OICgVY96Yr57UTsODlcPbcKjspfkknu+Gc5p4B8 hhQBMcLr5HIvsora9cCGqXDD2nlU77NfW5cJUjfgqg0TpGQDZNyYHKa/zZId6CNOL3ij iMncGS+00QPV69ECP1oOKtaU97XVxt5e9KGFDc3G+NfJLAm8GoOGUdRnDdvCbvM1+NXX b8wLHhyLLY1lvyB5RGokZXyr0MMMTlDvumZfcHKzzyDLMgtr4oGaehkV3Ov7HzCQmqfI i/Rqws0gN3OcfNclOAfkMIQ1Hv6JQT85FbDvTGNjXs6PEXzhDnAr38XF7irPISKCiQZS TWlw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=85EXhTsLjcJDUohuyMjJvbvWfQJPbDdUocQKs+otpPA=; b=I7f3cYRoB2qVNjf1U1fbBIFOptEDpoAvYTUvvCgw4TEYn1jolGTT2uaGm/3HYnRI/x WyzTFZ35Un2wfyggiJNfjpi/B9KN8fJGoE23nOeO07v47ORpVAYArZ5UNPz8F73M/ObH E5FkpdXAlTs9mg4z+Ce09gp3EGmvdLpgrUnjaY/UWJAZbwtkaIGVOA8R8HIiQ+ahqA71 fLe0jnw2ZLKlilvmK2pwtcCt6oiA/Otg0Swu5ni02pRGAEEi049/3YFNXlxrr6/UhDNI nTROVU0UgZi00Nk/I7PlyRkTE1i9ewkzz4KBEXoVy2ECSkRBNptxq+6VXn4VDlJqMdWQ sUaA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfohZ2d3+5qKblastlx834gh/sVhFnxZWB5IpkMaqsV38Diub8Lpn Lc198an8oCeDDtTCbFkA57S4c8l18QqXAcBdRZ6CHg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV62r9vmFU3XlpGwObVyuBrCbwUnPpipa0aJ1nC/Nvi1x6+UAo99HOuvLE250qnv7QPqcVlt1byKAwW+Yy/gHDcc=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:910c:: with SMTP id t12-v6mr3855237lfd.98.1539352483610; Fri, 12 Oct 2018 06:54:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <153922397672.5804.489295934152877724.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <1B1F17D2-5FAE-4FEC-93CE-F1D9CEFC08C4@telekom.de>
In-Reply-To: <1B1F17D2-5FAE-4FEC-93CE-F1D9CEFC08C4@telekom.de>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 06:54:06 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBPeAfEVuLVTRbNjLYmKhNQJf9uyVEFSkn8ACKAo-RTMhw@mail.gmail.com>
To: ian.farrer@telekom.de
Cc: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-dhc-dhcp4o6-saddr-opt@ietf.org, dhc-chairs@ietf.org, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>, dhcwg@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f857a00578086dbc"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/_lttZGUdgV9BbyPx6gtQlotRONQ>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcp4o6-saddr-opt-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 13:54:52 -0000
Thanks for your note First, let me apologize: I somehow forgot to include that I think Ben's point is correct: there seems to be an amplification attack in which I rebind my IPv4 address to some victim's IPv6 address with the result that they get a pile of traffic. Do you agree with that? On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 3:45 AM <ian.farrer@telekom.de> wrote: > > > On 11.10.18, 04:13, "dhcwg on behalf of Eric Rescorla" < > dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of ekr@rtfm.com> wrote: > > Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dhc-dhcp4o6-saddr-opt-06: Discuss > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to > https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcp4o6-saddr-opt/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Rich version of this review at: > https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D5110 > > > I believe there are security issues as detailed in this review. > > DETAIL > S 9. > > For such an attack to be effective, the attacker would need to > know > > both the client identifier and active IPv4 address lease > currently in > > use by another client. The risk of this can be reduced by > using a > > client identifier format which is not easily guessable, e.g., by > > including a time component for when the client identifier was > > generated (see [I-D.ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis] Section 11.2). > > This doesn't seem like a very strong defense. At minimum you need an > analysis of the level of entropy. > > I note that an on-path attacker (as RFC 3552 requires us to consider) > will have no real problem with this attack. This seems fairly serious. > > > A rogue client could attempt to use the mechanism described > in Section 4.2.1 to redirect IPv4 traffic > intended for another client to itself. This would be performed by > sending a DHCPREQUEST message for another client's active IPv4 > lease containing the attacker's softwire IPv6 address in > OPTION_DHCP4O6_S46_SADDR. > > For such an attack to be effective, the attacker would > need to know both the client identifier and active IPv4 > address lease currently in use by another client. This could > be attempted in three ways: > > 1, One customer learning the active IPv4 address lease > and client identifier of another customer via snooping > the DHCP4o6 message flow between the client > and server. The mechanism described in this document is > intended for use in a typical ISP network topology with > a dedicated layer-2 access network per-client, > meaning that snooping of another client's traffic is > not possible. If the access network is a shared > medium then it provisioning softwire clients using > dynamic DHCP4o6 as described here is > not recommended. > You probably want to use NOT RECOMMENDED. > 2, Learning the active IPv4 address lease and client identifier > via snooping the DHCP4o6 message flow between the client > and server in the aggregation or core ISP network. > In this case, the attacker requires a level > of access to the ISP's infrastructure that means they can already > intercept or interfer with traffic flows to the client. > This is true, but generally we consider cheap traffic redirection attacks as a problem. > 3, An attacker could attempt to brute-force guessing the IPv4 > lease address and client identifier tuple. The risk of > this can be reduced by using a client identifier format > which is not easily guessable, e.g., by using a UUID > based client identifier (see [I-D.ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis] > Section 11.5). > Is that really the most unguessable? I would have thought the random one was best.... > ] > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > S 1. > > A dynamic provisioning model, such as using DHCPv4 over DHCPv6 > > [RFC7341] (DHCP 4o6) allows much more flexibility in the > location of > > the IPv4-over-IPv6 softwire source address. In this model, the > IPv6 > > address is dynamically communicated back to the service provider > > allowing the corresponding softwire configuration to be created > in > > the border router (BR). > > I'm sure this is obvious to the informed, but it would have helped me > to have explained that the setting here is that the client has v6-only > service and is going to get a v4 address and tunnel that over v6. > > > [if - The abstract tries to cover this, but it could be made more clear. > How > about: > > OLD: > DHCPv4 over DHCPv6 (RFC7341) is a mechanism for dynamically > configuring IPv4 over an IPv6-only network. For DHCPv4 over DHCPv6 > NEW: > DHCPv4 over DHCPv6 (RFC7341) is a mechanism for dynamically > configuring IPv4 for use as an over-the-top service in a IPv6-only > network. Softwires are an example of such a service. For DHCPv4 > over > DHCPv6..... > LGTM. ] > > S 5. > > OPTION_DHCP4O6_S46_SADDR (TBD2) with the IPv6 address > which > > the client will use as its softwire source address. > > > > Step 4 The server sends a DHCPv6 'DHCPV4-RESPONSE (21)' > message. > > OPTION_DHCPV4_MSG contains a DHCPv4 DHCPACK message. > > OPTION_DHCP4O6_S46_SADDR with the client's softwire > source > > Which of these messages contains the client's assigned IPv4 address? > It's the DHCPOFFER, right? > > [if - DHCPOFFER contains an address proposal for the client, but the actual > allocation is not made until the client sends the DHCPREQUEST for the > address and the server responds with the DHCPACK saying that that the > allocation request has been successful. > > Would it be helpful to add a pointer here to Section 3.1 "Client-server > interaction > - allocating a network address" of RFC2131?] > Yes, but i think it would be best to annotate diagram with it. -Ekr > > _______________________________________________ > dhcwg mailing list > dhcwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg > > >
- [dhcwg] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-dhc… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [dhcwg] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf… ian.farrer
- Re: [dhcwg] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [dhcwg] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf… ian.farrer
- [dhcwg] FW: Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf… ian.farrer
- Re: [dhcwg] FW: Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [dhcwg] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf… ian.farrer