Re: [lisp] Restarting last call on LISP threats

Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> Thu, 15 May 2014 18:42 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 C3DE31A009C for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 May 2014 11:42:32 -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 mxmCT2AS-xPc for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 May 2014 11:42:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1lp0144.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.144]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8ED201A0053 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 May 2014 11:42:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.73.146) by CO2PR05MB634.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.199.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.944.11; Thu, 15 May 2014 18:42:21 +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 18:42:21 +0000
From: Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
To: Joel Halpern Direct <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com>, "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Roger_J=F8rgensen?= <rogerj@gmail.com>, Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net>
Thread-Topic: [lisp] Restarting last call on LISP threats
Thread-Index: AQHPa58LSm48HWl6Wky1MR3KNHiENZs9MyiAgAD04oCAAJ/u8IAAAtXQgABKWQCAAuX8QIAABNUAgAADScA=
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 18:42:20 +0000
Message-ID: <11cf5759b99444189c9ac1621f3a8def@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> <5372950E.3080704@joelhalpern.com> <172db6c3e26f458ebd70141bed7b7a8b@CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <53750788.900@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <53750788.900@joelhalpern.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)(51704005)(199002)(189002)(377454003)(479174003)(24454002)(13464003)(33646001)(83322001)(87936001)(2656002)(19580395003)(21056001)(19580405001)(76176999)(92566001)(101416001)(86362001)(50986999)(54356999)(99286001)(99396002)(64706001)(20776003)(561944003)(79102001)(66066001)(80022001)(74662001)(31966008)(74502001)(76576001)(15975445006)(76482001)(46102001)(74316001)(77982001)(1941001)(4396001)(81342001)(81542001)(85852003)(83072002)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:CO2PR05MB634; H:CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX: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="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/Au6qMe81qRiLKrKtDOugsTD-N_g
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 18:42:32 -0000

Joel,

Please standby for my response to Roger.

                                    Ron


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joel Halpern Direct [mailto:jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 2:29 PM
> To: Ronald Bonica; Joel M. Halpern; Roger Jørgensen; Ross Callon
> Cc: lisp@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [lisp] Restarting last call on LISP threats
> 
> The threats document does not specify how to resolve the threats.  It
> identifies problems.  In this particular case, it already identifies the problem
> that Ross raised.  Quite clearly.
> 
> There is no dependence on the documents Roger pointed to.  They are ways
> of remediating the threat.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> On 5/15/14, 2:15 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote:
> > Joel,
> >
> > The threats document should not depend on lisp-sec or lisp-crypto.
> > However, Roger's response did rely on those documents (see his
> > response, below).
> >
> > So, we are left to explore whether something was omitted from the
> > threats document. Standby for my response to Roger.
> >
> > Ron
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message----- From: Joel M. Halpern
> >> [mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 5:57 PM
> >> To: Ronald Bonica; Roger Jørgensen; Ross Callon Cc: lisp@ietf.org
> >> Subject: Re: [lisp] Restarting last call on LISP threats
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> Yours, Joel
> >>
> >> On 5/13/14, 1:31 PM, Ronald Bonica 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?
> >>>
> >>> Ron
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message----- From: Ronald Bonica Sent: Tuesday, May
> >>>> 13, 2014 1:22 PM To: 'Roger Jørgensen'; Ross Callon Cc:
> >>>> lisp@ietf.org Subject: RE: [lisp] Restarting last call on LISP
> >>>> threats
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Roger,
> >>>>
> >>>> Can this draft stand on its own, without integrating content from
> >>>> the documents that you reference?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Ron
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There exist two draft that are relevant to what you address.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You have
> >>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farinacci-lisp-crypto/
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> where the payload of a LISP encapsulated packet are encrypted. None
> >>>>> of the keys for encrypting/decrypting are stored in the mapping
> >>>>> system but is calculated by the xTR's involved. Then you have
> >>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-sec/ that
> >>>>> attempts to secure the xTR to xTR relationship.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________ lisp
> mailing list
> >>> lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
> >>>