Re: [lisp] Restarting last call on LISP threats

Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net> Thu, 12 June 2014 15:28 UTC

Return-Path: <rcallon@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 B92211A00A2 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jun 2014 08:28:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 u3RfLQKoOBPS for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jun 2014 08:28:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1lp0145.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.145]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF9D91A00FA for <lisp@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jun 2014 08:28:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from CO2PR05MB636.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.199.24) by DM2PR05MB447.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.104.150) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.949.11; Thu, 12 Jun 2014 15:28:50 +0000
Received: from CO2PR05MB636.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.199.24]) by CO2PR05MB636.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.199.24]) with mapi id 15.00.0954.000; Thu, 12 Jun 2014 15:28:50 +0000
From: Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net>
To: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [lisp] Restarting last call on LISP threats
Thread-Index: AQHPhM4EWF5k26Wu0Uq+sllpwWiB/5tqkxcAgAAEjYCAACWigIACpvUAgAAxObCAAAXAgIAAAOZA
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 15:28:49 +0000
Message-ID: <47dad9120b114679bb0ec56976f4baa9@CO2PR05MB636.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <d690563db20d4fca945b810a14f37090@CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <B3A9D234-A6A2-45DC-B8FA-623B3A86DCE8@gmail.com> <a7c188aabbfe41ef80645d2ee1d6df99@CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <E0485205-9FCD-46FC-B852-06259334A47C@gmail.com> <40ecc5d773874ecdbdc05763004acfa7@CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <A2225E25-FE9E-4F97-B86F-9C078BB6A312@gmail.com> <db040d02b9a3402c9e53e1ae6374b2bb@CO2PR05MB636.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <BEA94770-F16C-449E-BA44-3FC8E5DE1292@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BEA94770-F16C-449E-BA44-3FC8E5DE1292@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.18]
x-microsoft-antispam: BL:0; ACTION:Default; RISK:Low; SCL:0; SPMLVL:NotSpam; PCL:0; RULEID:
x-forefront-prvs: 02408926C4
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(6009001)(428001)(51444003)(377454003)(164054003)(13464003)(51704005)(189002)(199002)(24454002)(85852003)(1411001)(77982001)(83072002)(74316001)(101416001)(76482001)(86362001)(87936001)(74662001)(2656002)(74502001)(4396001)(19580405001)(46102001)(83322001)(19580395003)(76576001)(99286001)(15975445006)(99396002)(81542001)(93886003)(81342001)(64706001)(20776003)(77096999)(80022001)(66066001)(79102001)(33646001)(54356999)(76176999)(50986999)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:DM2PR05MB447; H:CO2PR05MB636.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=rcallon@juniper.net;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/MscCw7ehKdsmOqBjUNkCABQsL7M
Cc: LISP mailing list list <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, 12 Jun 2014 15:28:55 -0000

> So by now we know there are many issues with gleaning. So we should
> document them and say they shouldn't be used for the general global Internet use-case.
>
> Dino

This I agree with. I will go off and digest the rest.

Thanks, Ross

 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lisp [mailto:lisp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Damien Saucez
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 8:08 AM
> To: Ronald Bonica
> Cc: LISP mailing list list
> Subject: Re: [lisp] Restarting last call on LISP threats
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I am not sure I understand exactly what you are proposing.  How can a
> LISP router decide that a RLOC is done by simply receiving an ICMP
> packet from an attacker (except with LSB that is discussed in Sec
> 4.3.2.1.  )?  All the other techniques are triggered by the LISP
> router and are protected by the nonce.
> 
> Could you describe precisely the attack you have in mind?  The only
> think I can see is relying on the birthday paradox but that is a
> completely different story.
> 
> Damien Saucez 
> 
> On 10 Jun 2014, at 21:37, Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> wrote:
> 
>> Dino,
>> 
>> Exactly! So, assume the following:
>> 
>> - LISP is deployed on the global Internet
>> - An RLOC is mapped to some number of EID prefixes
>> - For a subset of those EID prefixes, the above mentioned RLOC is preferred
>> - An ITR receives a hint indicating that the RLOC is down (either through a LISP data packet or an ICMP message)
>> 
>> The ITR will verify RLOC reachability (possibly by polling the RLOC). But until the ITR has receives a response to its poll, how should it behave? Should it continue sending traffic though the above mentioned RLOC? Or should it begin to send traffic through another RLOC, if one exists? I don't see a normative recommendation. 
>> 
>> However, both behaviors have their drawbacks and could be vectors for attack.
>> 
>>                                                                                                          Ron
>> 
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:farinacci@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 1:23 PM
>>> To: Ronald Bonica
>>> Cc: LISP mailing list list
>>> Subject: Re: [lisp] Restarting last call on LISP threats
>>> 
>>> As I keep saying Ron, you need to verify anything you intend to glean. The
>>> spec says the gleaning is "a hint" and not gospel.
>>> 
>>> Dino
>>> 
>>> On Jun 10, 2014, at 10:06 AM, Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Dino,
>>>> 
>>>> Given that the LISP data packet or ICMP packet may be from an attacker, is
>>> it even safe to glean that? I think not.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Ron
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:farinacci@gmail.com]
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 1:04 PM
>>>>> To: Ronald Bonica
>>>>> Cc: LISP mailing list list
>>>>> Subject: Re: [lisp] Restarting last call on LISP threats
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Jun 10, 2014, at 9:57 AM, Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Earlier in this thread, we agreed that when LISP is deployed on the
>>>>>> global
>>>>> Internet, mapping information cannot be gleaned safely from incoming
>>>>> LISP data packets. Following that train of thought, when LISP is
>>>>> deployed on the global Internet, is it safe to glean routing locator
>>>>> reachability information from incoming LISP data packets as described
>>>>> in RFC 6830, Section 6.3, bullet 1. If not, I think that we need to mention
>>> this in the threats document.
>>>>> 
>>>>> What you can glean is that the source RLOC is up, but you cannot
>>>>> glean your path to it is reachable.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Given that ICMP packets are easily spoofed, when LISP is deployed on
>>>>>> the
>>>>> global Internet, is it safe to glean routing locator reachability
>>>>> information from incoming ICMP packets as described in RFC 6830,
>>>>> Section 6.3, bullet 2 and bullet 4. If not, I think that we need to
>>>>> mention this in the threats document.
>>>>> 
>>>>> What you can glean is that the source RLOC is up, but you cannot
>>>>> glean your path to it is reachable.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dino
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> lisp mailing list
>> lisp@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> lisp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> lisp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp