Re: REMINDER: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-maxra-01>

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 01/06/2017 01:11 AM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
> Hi Tim,
> 
> On 01/05/2017 06:54 AM, Tim Chown wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Just a brief comment on the Security Considerations.
>>
>> This draft could mention RFC6105; currently it only says that rogue RAs can “easily” be prevented through use of SeND, but in practice RA Guard approaches are the common mitigation.  I’m also not sure the “attack window” changes; there is either a rogue RA or there isn’t, regardless of the true RA interval.
> 
> Adding a reference to RA guard sounds like a good idea. Will do. The attack 
> window is larger because the damage from the rogue RA can persist longer 
> before getting overridden by a legitimate RA. I don't have strong feelings 
> about keeping the "attack window" wording though.

My interpretation of "attack window" is along the lines of "amount of
time the attacker has to do his thing". In this respect the attack
window does not change. What changes is the persistence of the effects
of the attack (for *some* RA-based attacks).

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492