IETF Logo Mail Archive

[IPv6] Why folks are blocking IPv6 extension headers? (Episode 1000 and counting) (Linux DoS)

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Wed, 17 May 2023 12:59 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40E89C15198E; Wed, 17 May 2023 05:59:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1yGu83TCOJOi; Wed, 17 May 2023 05:59:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A322C15171B; Wed, 17 May 2023 05:59:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPV6:2001:67c:27e4:c::1002] (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4:c::1002]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 09C292803F4; Wed, 17 May 2023 09:59:43 -0300 (-03)
Message-ID: <11087a11-476c-5fb8-2ede-e1b3b6e95e48@si6networks.com>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2023 14:59:42 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: 6man@ietf.org
Cc: V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>, opsec WG <opsec@ietf.org>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Organization: SI6 Networks
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/TcSvi0mlQN3ghZx8D55v1nb6blU>
Subject: [IPv6] Why folks are blocking IPv6 extension headers? (Episode 1000 and counting) (Linux DoS)
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 May 2023 12:59:57 -0000

Hi,

I believe we've already covered the topic quite thoroughly in RFC 9098.

But if you want yet another data point, FYI this is instance N++ of a 
DoS based on IPv6 EHs implementation flaws: 
https://www.interruptlabs.co.uk/articles/linux-ipv6-route-of-death

It should be no surprise what security-minded folks tend to do with IPv6 
EHs, particularly when there's currently no much reliance on them these 
days.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: F242 FF0E A804 AF81 EB10 2F07 7CA1 321D 663B B494

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email