IETF Logo Mail Archive

[manet] Re: [secdir] Secdir early review of draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification-12

Shawn M Emery <shawn.emery@gmail.com> Tue, 13 August 2024 20:35 UTC

Return-Path: <shawn.emery@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5980BC14F5F8; Tue, 13 Aug 2024 13:35:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id py0zNq9dC2bt; Tue, 13 Aug 2024 13:35:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd31.google.com (mail-io1-xd31.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d31]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89230C14F6E2; Tue, 13 Aug 2024 13:35:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd31.google.com with SMTP id ca18e2360f4ac-81fdaccd75eso224000639f.3; Tue, 13 Aug 2024 13:35:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1723581328; x=1724186128; darn=ietf.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=bWinDNzlh2mQ9xsq05k8OAfwOYC9+eNV5uvGWVSahlU=; b=CqYYAFd/g3a0uDbBlDTGNKSmkjJe6ZcuuFAXKkIBIfl9NvTtLlxLOpBfQ+YSu76I9S UIzU4YQ1kIz1svL4uM/ndpZXVxojJcKlU41xYemj+dE2TDcgSM7WxutOhefLmi4Gxorh 3SiBl3vrO6KnY56lqx+z0WirFrVa0CPDCnOlK/vkPY3V8WYG3ORi6xaUc9f7SMNgJ8Jr jpRMlBwn6aqXXEDbVz/MM8t7IFhLJ0qfOEqxx7K22RSvYrsY4GAYkXaHjRfKjuf/Uvux uNN0IdYzUIbKH4cPOZieEhOwnuwdRSllpYKOPIlYSug4dr0v3ku6fVYrLG/W5ztjDlvg KrKA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1723581328; x=1724186128; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=bWinDNzlh2mQ9xsq05k8OAfwOYC9+eNV5uvGWVSahlU=; b=FmvWnP1I+hgvzrpGSMgpa2x1kWg1sonP71SNq7Echy4uvuiEEZtL0UqLUQnC987Iye 08P+V0QbHTmRHl7Y0zL+xeqdAFErtoHrJpR3g0hzktz3dfZJVBdwOerj3KOvQbKe48L7 qb5SUw1lQd+aZYJGDUdKsk/UpnZFqJG/vsQ6xvCUTMCCZ1H8FUVRdR5/9Oo1C1id79sy Hi3vU8eJrzEWRWgdSjD7niMDcAmEA6dUGIAgPm+Gb8nmk6UiwMUC8i/vLHGVz693/CGh EuRqD5RMsIYlzdTdbGhdv5Ah1iyPw9xR6q8AdSkmGx6luoma7RvXWgIxhsJzi7lbhd/W INgw==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVMlTbCJzBOzXEA+T4IB3+yqHhtEn3kxR3fT4zwj3jtx/qogIOmFSev9TAip/iFvuL524NioohmSd+mdzbr/g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxZteufhjUybpf+T5cgsGeJtjKKncyh/dHg+ONyDpwUmy392ry1 a8xKL1PCgKlUPsgE/PI02hG+yacleKoauAdCrsRaMn6LkkryIlnc15Ypow==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IF6L3HeptwA9okFX6ul2mrNKRlmXsdgErHYA6yD8++PkbnT+XYkCN5/flOtOgI9kyPmQp3QOg==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6602:3fc4:b0:81f:a28b:d448 with SMTP id ca18e2360f4ac-824daddffbdmr112928339f.16.1723581328121; Tue, 13 Aug 2024 13:35:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.49] (174-29-87-120.hlrn.qwest.net. [174.29.87.120]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 8926c6da1cb9f-4ca769101ddsm2690589173.8.2024.08.13.13.35.26 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 13 Aug 2024 13:35:26 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <f1533e87-4638-4bd6-984e-a66a1bcfdf23@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 14:35:25 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: secdir@ietf.org
References: <172335555684.555777.8455571388418360599@dt-datatracker-6df4c9dcf5-t2x2k>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Shawn M Emery <shawn.emery@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <172335555684.555777.8455571388418360599@dt-datatracker-6df4c9dcf5-t2x2k>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID-Hash: FKF2JQDMYHWBXDYWNV7UJTAV5IJW2AW3
X-Message-ID-Hash: FKF2JQDMYHWBXDYWNV7UJTAV5IJW2AW3
X-MailFrom: shawn.emery@gmail.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-manet.ietf.org-0; header-match-manet.ietf.org-1; header-match-manet.ietf.org-2; header-match-manet.ietf.org-3; header-match-manet.ietf.org-4; header-match-manet.ietf.org-5; header-match-manet.ietf.org-6; header-match-manet.ietf.org-7; header-match-manet.ietf.org-8; header-match-manet.ietf.org-9; header-match-manet.ietf.org-10; header-match-manet.ietf.org-11; header-match-manet.ietf.org-12; header-match-manet.ietf.org-13; header-match-manet.ietf.org-14; header-match-manet.ietf.org-15; header-match-manet.ietf.org-16; header-match-manet.ietf.org-17; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification.all@ietf.org, manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [manet] Re: [secdir] Secdir early review of draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification-12
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/94aMz2fAKBJDnuvs_Krf_jfb3Gs>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/manet>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:manet-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:manet-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:manet-leave@ietf.org>

In addition to disclosing the DoS attack, I would suggest adding that 
the privacy and integrity of the protocol's messaging is also covered by 
specifying DLEP's TLS option.

Shawn.
--
On 8/10/24 11:52 PM, Shawn Emery via Datatracker wrote:
> Reviewer: Shawn Emery
> Review result: Has Nits
>
> I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing
> effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments
> were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors. Document
> editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call
> comments.
>
> This standards track draft specifies a protocol for identifying various link
> control messages utilized by the Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP).
>
> The security considerations sections does exist and discloses that the protocol
> opens up vulnerabilities for DoS by modifying or injecting protocol messages
> (e.g., decrease the max window size to a unrealistically small value).  The
> mitigation of said vulnerabilities is deferred to RFC 8175's security
> considerations, which prescribes TLS for transport security and provides
> IEEE-802.1AE and IEEE-802.1X as examples to protect Layer 2 from injecting or
> altering messages.  I believe this to be an accurate assertion.
>
> General comments:
>
> In order to help me fully understand the concepts of this protocol I think it
> would be nice to have examples for DSCP and PCP Sub-Data Items.
>
> Editorial comments:
>
> s/DLPE/DLEP/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> secdir mailing list -- secdir@ietf.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to secdir-leave@ietf.org
> wiki: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/secdir/SecDirReview

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status