Re: [Lsvr] [OPSEC] security against what?
Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Tue, 04 September 2018 18:17 UTC
Return-Path: <randy@psg.com>
X-Original-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBE6E130EF1; Tue, 4 Sep 2018 11:17:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 Yy_JyTRwYBsV; Tue, 4 Sep 2018 11:17:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (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 97F41130E47; Tue, 4 Sep 2018 11:17:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.rg.net) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1fxFsr-0002Qp-JR; Tue, 04 Sep 2018 18:17:01 +0000
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2018 11:17:00 -0700
Message-ID: <m2musxp1pf.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
Cc: Erik Kline <ek@google.com>, opsec wg mailing list <opsec@ietf.org>, lsvr@ietf.org, gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com
In-Reply-To: <CAL9jLaaVSh+Kht6JepHCzN1r4Y_+vtd0ypNSHhLx+GVA7DVpVQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <m21sbkjba8.wl-randy@psg.com> <AM5PR0701MB172966DC99841C55D5E26CA2E0030@AM5PR0701MB1729.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAAedzxrX5TWxYtA-uCfA3QyF_N1L3-tmjtqWTNThXvNNi4Uppw@mail.gmail.com> <m2zhwxposb.wl-randy@psg.com> <CAL9jLaa0VmEQpi45T0wdNV51R5+ib4Lo8NhmO9RJq-6OiO69EA@mail.gmail.com> <m2wos1p92d.wl-randy@psg.com> <CAL9jLaaVSh+Kht6JepHCzN1r4Y_+vtd0ypNSHhLx+GVA7DVpVQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/25.3 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsvr/KbbF3c2cb9BLQc_Uiqqmkh7cHh0>
Subject: Re: [Lsvr] [OPSEC] security against what?
X-BeenThere: lsvr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Vector Routing <lsvr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsvr>, <mailto:lsvr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsvr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsvr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsvr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsvr>, <mailto:lsvr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2018 18:17:07 -0000
>>> 'datacenter operators' == "hyperscale web wonkers" ? >> i asked in lsvr, which is what i guess you woud call hyperscale. >> lsvr also tends toward decentralized, > sorry: 'decentralized' means what here? for example, compare jupiter rising to bgp-spf; both of which i think are super cool >>> or 'datacenter operators' == 'colo provider' ('the planet' not >>> 'equinix' and 'the planet' is now 'someone else' but...) >> 1x would seem especially inapporpriate here as there is no >> centralisation of authority. > So, in a large datacenter where randos are able to walk around and > affect change to my cage's in/outs (and potentially clamp mitm/etc > gear without my knowledge) there's a different 'security concern' than > there is in a building I wholey own and operate behind several layers > of physical security and such. there are probably threats shared between the two, oh frabjious joy. but i suspect the intersection is far smaller than the union. > If all of your "datacenter deployment" is inside a single cage in a > colocation building you MAY be "safe", but if you span cage spaces > (who ever decided on day-one in a building that they only would ever > need 640kb ram/squarefeet/kw/etc?) you are potentially sending your > 'routing protocols' over links outside of your immediate security > perimeter. yes, in which case one worries about those monkeys in the middle more than ever > That seems rather scary... like kinda really scary, actually... I > wonder how often people consider: "security of the data in the > datacenter (at rest or in flight)" but forget about the routing system > which is intrinsic to the operation of that datacenter? we would be out of work were it not for the naïve :) >>>>> Is recommending 802.1x possible/sufficient (given the description in >>>>> Randy's strawperson comment)? >>>> it's a long way to that radius server >> with coffee, i might expand a bit. during turn up of new links and >> devices, it may not be easy to get to a distant 1x authority. > I'd point out that if you put business critical dependencies 'far > away' you are a competitor I'd love to have? :) > Ideally once you figure out your deployment scenario and drive down > all the dependency tree branches you figure out who/what needs to be > "local" to the deployment, and how to live in a state where that > dependency is unfulfilled for part of the turnup/repair/turndown > workflows. Right? sure. but at the moment, i am trying to tease out the lsvr ops' threat models. randy
- [Lsvr] security against what? Randy Bush
- Re: [Lsvr] security against what? Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: [Lsvr] [OPSEC] security against what? Erik Kline
- Re: [Lsvr] [OPSEC] security against what? Randy Bush
- Re: [Lsvr] [OPSEC] security against what? Christopher Morrow
- Re: [Lsvr] security against what? Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Lsvr] [OPSEC] security against what? Randy Bush
- Re: [Lsvr] [OPSEC] security against what? Christopher Morrow
- Re: [Lsvr] [OPSEC] security against what? Randy Bush
- Re: [Lsvr] [OPSEC] security against what? Christopher Morrow