Re: IPv6 header insertion in a controlled domain

Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> Sun, 08 December 2019 17:13 UTC

Return-Path: <hayabusagsm@gmail.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 5859612004F for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Dec 2019 09:13:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 ZGujT4WZvLrF for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Dec 2019 09:13:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io1-xd35.google.com (mail-io1-xd35.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d35]) (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 5DB55120025 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 Dec 2019 09:13:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io1-xd35.google.com with SMTP id x1so12254131iop.7 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 08 Dec 2019 09:13:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=TXeFTRRMisLmd3cX+uXocfvBcKxEgHMtJ3qgdxmmhlI=; b=XZRop9M97wQrG659Pgcp0OQ9CmDIadGmmnfFDO5Qlf3StTKbWDxHwGNjm+ybaslPpJ vAin/xGA58428JRetS+aFVzNz76wpKWcSB8ZALHR68PFSczeN/Fj9w2p18HkaRYblMdJ 3Uw494II931KIyQT5qWZ/sGy4lqTfmCZHbn79tslFoIJYXnax/9k8wTkXWkNycMt4kqy dsTqRcS2t/QLQ/z8uk+6Rwd5zTkyjST2CDp+N0+w639S+qX1V/QqUPpGNEw59PonB3EF 0oyhP/lclKbrWvZdDW4svGI6Y6mH+divlT+fatKH6rn5UNMOk9WMjv6snPWMqHGCLtWW hvXw==
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=TXeFTRRMisLmd3cX+uXocfvBcKxEgHMtJ3qgdxmmhlI=; b=d4Wca21iF15+Jx1fZmHy+Oo6XGuKngznwPFMmio/GJ7qu9/MUoiCOd0J8fn3vn3Mvx /U10satkGCPFgEZd5qmHiu9OUxtEAm3KwvABnm4jLZ9weX5NIpmd7FZ5yBaT8/hJAlib em9qHvm3LUFwcSBHmc5RL2utoKsGXVsCk8BlaYLNBZA0O1JOeGeS8aglalcwu2CVJuVI tr0RGOxa0RoV0R1x+WXuX0O7RA9g/T9CBnpGvC+A9NjYm778lunGBbxNiYuZvGo76dvf yyJ8q8uC7OrdHp4ATLmx+rUwJdouvPKMLKZzWT9l7RNYA+PoW0HViaeS4+iVK5EySIad q6Zg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWitnG1TTbhraKFQkjwug139qjQq7ORTydFLzkGNRwNBZEawiZP 1GFQDEOjM8iXTTS8WBk2MqQB38mCwISqhY/4RkY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxFFR8+bHYQZGDH6Ei6RpU7yjTk9J7CBNKqmZ4RV1o5F/yLu+qFckIWsGj/r/Pwd6VOZL+7XlXda2Km4YfKe9A=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:a0cf:: with SMTP id i15mr23979196jah.95.1575825184502; Sun, 08 Dec 2019 09:13:04 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALx6S3588ja9AZzBQ0dqwx0j-ki6A5tusye+odQKPyAyF+hEww@mail.gmail.com> <10E890EA-3278-44EE-881E-EBC91D419587@employees.org> <88287cb0-c0c3-f990-4dd7-338df87c7fb2@joelhalpern.com> <4E76C386-FB1E-4E48-814D-BB626466BEE3@employees.org> <CAO42Z2ze7tmkGh=E-YrPuJHMeD8V6EuxgjjaJ33iz+Ms3abNsA@mail.gmail.com> <ED9B7C60-ACDE-4107-A121-AE2DAEA6B640@employees.org> <CABNhwV0EGiMaX0Qkyk+_zqZfiaAS_RP_ewVEctgdSnMuJ3MBPw@mail.gmail.com> <8AE06652-D6DB-444D-A8BB-7924181C83E4@employees.org> <CABNhwV1Ym5xtDY+vo8haaaObhMayE+ejkUbm4Sq9A5axCQwopA@mail.gmail.com> <160F2740-7571-44D9-8995-5D2F23989DF6@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <160F2740-7571-44D9-8995-5D2F23989DF6@employees.org>
From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2019 12:12:53 -0500
Message-ID: <CABNhwV1Jdw3xwfGSJbQbF1e7ZtfL_pEsmSRC6KkRbdK+4EAygQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IPv6 header insertion in a controlled domain
To: otroan@employees.org
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000059ba7c059934645e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/gySgE0fsqIeKxE8Ks9G7Jzep_a4>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sun, 08 Dec 2019 17:13:07 -0000

On Sun, Dec 8, 2019 at 11:24 AM <otroan@employees.org> wrote:

> Gyan,
>
> > > I think the in flight eh insertion done on the node doing the
> encapsulation node A  is safer from a security perspective then an
> intermediate node adding a eh header without encapsulation.  I think even
> though you add an encapsulation but if the node doing the encapsulation is
> not the one adding the eh header it’s no different in my opinion then the
> node A not doing an encapsulation at all which was proposed initially by
> Spring.
> > >
> > > So we have to enforce that the EH insertion is only done by the node
> performing the encapsulation.
> >
> > With regards to your comment that node B doing insertion on a packet
> with SA=A and DA=C, is equivalent to doing insertion on the original packet
> without encapsulation, I think the risks of that is defined in Mark's
> draft/8200.
> >
> > Let me dig down on the security issue a bit.
> > Still given the simple example I gave earlier.
> > Can you ellaborate on what security issue you see, and why doing
> insertion at B is less secure than at A?
> >
> >      I was thinking the obvious man in middle attack tampering with v6
> header by intermediate node and possible impact to AH if used.
>
> If AH is used, wouldn't A add the signature, and C when validating would
> know that B added the header and could do verification accordingly?
> For a controlled domain where all of A,B and C are acting in cohort, then
> that wouldn't be too far fetched to assume.
> At least a lot more probable than that AH would be used at all. ;-)


    With AH the hash signature has to match between source and destination
so in this case with eh insertion it would not

>
>
> Any other security issues you see?
>
> Cheers,
> Ole

-- 

Gyan S. Mishra

IT Network Engineering & Technology

Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ)

13101 Columbia Pike FDC1 3rd Floor

Silver Spring, MD 20904

United States

Phone: 301 502-1347

Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com

www.linkedin.com/in/networking-technologies-consultant