Re: [lisp] Restarting last call on LISP threats

Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> Thu, 15 May 2014 21:02 UTC

Return-Path: <rbonica@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FEDA1A0124 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 May 2014 14:02:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=no
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 iiZlwOFxI2S8 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 May 2014 14:02:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1lp0142.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.142]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A23801A011B for <lisp@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 May 2014 14:02:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.73.146) by CO2PR05MB636.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.199.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.944.11; Thu, 15 May 2014 21:02:28 +0000
Received: from CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.13.206]) by CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.13.206]) with mapi id 15.00.0944.000; Thu, 15 May 2014 21:02:27 +0000
From: Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
To: =?utf-8?B?Um9nZXIgSsO4cmdlbnNlbg==?= <rogerj@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [lisp] Restarting last call on LISP threats
Thread-Index: AQHPa58LSm48HWl6Wky1MR3KNHiENZs9MyiAgAD04oCAAJ/u8IAAAtXQgADypICAAlhbEA==
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 21:02:26 +0000
Message-ID: <860b7987207345afb282a82862ff42c0@CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <536CFA13.4010102@joelhalpern.com> <4e6c0aaac8fb4aba87ab137cc49b51dc@CO2PR05MB636.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CAKFn1SH_gu1+e6EsWESBsRw9EGiSQ+Z5r9E7GEhMO1FdNuM9nQ@mail.gmail.com> <1a200c5f5de041fbaf88edd1a5c3159c@CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CAKFn1SEAZyydpQ4cx77mthsUx1HZqMwsM6xNuL4LJjG=oL1mjw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKFn1SEAZyydpQ4cx77mthsUx1HZqMwsM6xNuL4LJjG=oL1mjw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.14]
x-forefront-prvs: 0212BDE3BE
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(6009001)(428001)(24454002)(189002)(199002)(13464003)(377454003)(51704005)(15975445006)(86362001)(66066001)(80022001)(74662001)(31966008)(83322001)(19580395003)(19580405001)(81342001)(561944003)(54356999)(50986999)(79102001)(81542001)(74502001)(15202345003)(76176999)(33646001)(16601075003)(99396002)(99286001)(4396001)(20776003)(64706001)(76576001)(74316001)(101416001)(77982001)(83072002)(76482001)(92566001)(85852003)(46102001)(21056001)(2656002)(87936001)(1411001)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:CO2PR05MB636; H:CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=rbonica@juniper.net;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/1GGr-UOj9tw6TopkErbZ03XswPY
Cc: "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Restarting last call on LISP threats
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/>
List-Post: <mailto:lisp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 21:02:39 -0000

Roger,

Having considered this, it appears that the LISP data plane can operate in trusted or untrusted mode. In the trusted mode, when one XTR receives a data-plane packet from another, it can trust control plane information that it might glean from the packet's outer IP header and LISP header. Such trust is based on the assumption that:

- the sending XTR is who it claims to be
- the sending XTR is not intentionally offering bad mapping information to the receiving XTR

In trusted mode, the receiving XTR can glean control information from the data plane. However, in untrusted mode, the receiving XTR must not do so. Alternatively, it must send a verifying MAP-REQUEST to the mapping system.

So far, all of this is covered nicely between RFC 6830 and the LISP threats document. However, we have yet to explore the threats associated with unsecured mode operation, where gleaned information cannot be used.

For example, assume that two XTRs and an attacker are connected to the global Internet. The attacker is neither an XTR nor contained by a LISP site. The attacker is capable of spoofing its sources address.

The attacker can launch a DoS attack against an XTRs control plan by sending a barrage of crafted packets to the victim XTR. Each crafted packet cause the victim XTR to send a verifying MAP-REQUEST to the mapping system.  The attack stream may be so large that it causes the victim XTR to exceed the rate limit for MAP-REQUEST messages. 

                                                                                                           Ron


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roger Jørgensen [mailto:rogerj@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 3:59 AM
> To: Ronald Bonica
> Cc: Ross Callon; lisp@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [lisp] Restarting last call on LISP threats
> 
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
> wrote:
> > Hi Roger,
> >
> > Or asked more explicitly, can the level of security claimed by the threats
> document be achieved without implementing the protocol extensions
> described in lisp-sec and lisp-crypto?
> 
> I've been pondering on what to answer you since yesterday but think the
> reply from Joel cover it well. However as an addon to Joel and partly reply to
> your question, see more inline.
> 
> 
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:56 PM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
> wrote:
> > Ron, I am having trouble with the question.
> >
> > The threats document describes the threats as they exist today,
> > without the adoption of either document that Roger pointed to.  Thus,
> > I do not see any dependence.
> >
> > If there is a threat that is not well described in the base spec or
> > this document, then we should add it.  We should add it even if there
> > are proposals to remediate it.  But if there is a clear proposal of a
> > missing threat, I missed it.
> 
> Your question made me question the purpose of the LISP threats draft -
> should it cover potential problem with RFC6830 and include pointers to other
> work that cover them? That will include we'll get a document that will be
> updated over time and is that a good thing?
> 
> The other way to look at LISP threats document is to have it as a "review" of
> RFC6830, point out weaknesses and discuss them but with no references to
> other documents. It will be a upstream document that we can refer to from
> like the two draft I mention.
> 
> I don't think LISP threat should point to the two draft I mention, but both
> drafts should have a reference to LISP threat since this will be create a more
> stable threat document.
> 
> 
> 
> Then Dino mention:
> 
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 7:47 PM, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> <snip>
> > The main LISP spec (RFC6830) indicates if you want to trust the mapping
> system you can use the gleaned information as soon as you receive it. And if
> you don't trust the mapping system, you can send a "verifying Map-Request"
> to the mapping system which results in a signed Map-Reply returned ala
> draft-ietf-lisp-sec-06.
> 
> 
> Is this covered in the document? I didn't see it but it's still early here...
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Roger Jorgensen           | ROJO9-RIPE
> rogerj@gmail.com          | - IPv6 is The Key!
> http://www.jorgensen.no   | roger@jorgensen.no