Re: [MBONED] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-mboned-mtrace-v2-22: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Mon, 09 July 2018 12:37 UTC
Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
X-Original-To: mboned@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mboned@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 104CC130FBB for <mboned@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 05:37:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.008
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.008 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 L23I_mbakhzl for <mboned@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 05:37:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x234.google.com (mail-yw0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::234]) (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 02767130FC7 for <mboned@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 05:37:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x234.google.com with SMTP id p129-v6so6464237ywg.7 for <mboned@ietf.org>; Mon, 09 Jul 2018 05:37:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=8wK1SRVltqMU4GVFxX7aEUrsg/cJSLnys4cSs8a+G+g=; b=G2oIsGhl3fpMk/9yjvJyYU1zmThrdAVmh/S0AsYsCEHhn1XTGH9EaaPvQcLWJWwB+g b2maoz+BZC2lXtAcysg4PlsTJfxAn5UxEtV76zQYJr26IqWdM+cQ6nyF0weyS5brKLx2 nj2uJ8DR1nRVdZUEA41I2rHaaY5cpJyjbluDtY8YJ5pSXfVNYJIF65ad9sVtB3NOScwn MYjUWyPTcQQND6hkpnx+DU1UHSkW/rEY0Qd606Tvn2GZwaVE/L9ZpmcF+Oh1FcsW4gh8 Vllw5kXwJ6a4w8KD4mZlySgyw8ymMmGuXMNhrDqQPKEXgxKYRTWuhc/yGu7U+79TIp0S dsVw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=8wK1SRVltqMU4GVFxX7aEUrsg/cJSLnys4cSs8a+G+g=; b=N/QDm/7LTNnb40zc+10PE2esp1YQRtMfLT7PgH0YVgkZZLS37GIwpTbt+G7oTknY+L xeh7urINDb6MILcAJzKQdBfkPmnkdFk+4QlhszL1dwk4ye/fFiSevNicrQiagK+GWbLY GfIKPLn+LnEqhYpIwTzU8+QywicdRAdMYSqmsCfbziCojrLnbZSBgIAoZsRjiu6iKpPL TMXTrvZyehvbTaMIdb+0KdBPPMognBRG9rLgPZAp3hL7SglMqm2K5Qrt1sK3cU9IiLt0 rm3RBzbeOtqnkBbvolJ/vrNDvX5MaRuEW+yGc+TZ2abrukKiHoBSxcOEnLhN5VAkx7vJ FE7Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E3+Yy155JzPXy8Dgema5LYU6/8YVipncfuNRLSBZUKGoEabKaib UV+SdGmndBWHPz8na9O+BzqhTu/DFEr4LpmStZ1EUA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpdP1n65CGw9BS7KA6ICSTdVG5Y8c4AkxmAfuSgP+AUXbqZ1pYRzghoYQ3vxkBgIBDD+Bm2/g1V8TOPV2p1g28s=
X-Received: by 2002:a81:b642:: with SMTP id h2-v6mr9940501ywk.102.1531139833007; Mon, 09 Jul 2018 05:37:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a81:6b83:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 05:36:32 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <780E7155-9BCB-4EB3-A777-896C57E1BA85@ieee.org>
References: <3779EE09-4481-43DB-A422-9A9FE1A4CEB4@me.com> <E54E31C9-FCD2-4D5D-9295-6BBBF15BD938@me.com> <CABcZeBPdrfLf8ORuMQsKQ2jg1U0CyZ1jZHHqry2HwMEOf5hFyg@mail.gmail.com> <780E7155-9BCB-4EB3-A777-896C57E1BA85@ieee.org>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2018 05:36:32 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBO9WX40eUwBt15mNRLqrqeVe6EOtyLbTFsKEZ0EwaQ_6Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Hitoshi Asaeda <asaeda@ieee.org>
Cc: Kerry Meyer <kerry.meyer@me.com>, draft-ietf-mboned-mtrace-v2@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, MBONED WG <mboned@ietf.org>, mboned-chairs@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d92e1c0570904524"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/iP4cxql8LP63yET9MY3djeMyOg8>
Subject: Re: [MBONED] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-mboned-mtrace-v2-22: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: mboned@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mail List for the Mboned Working Group <mboned.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mboned>, <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mboned/>
List-Post: <mailto:mboned@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned>, <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2018 12:37:19 -0000
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 12:51 AM, Hitoshi Asaeda <asaeda@ieee.org> wrote: > Eric, > > (snip) > > >> Section 4.2.1, however (see below), prohibits processing of a Request > that is not sent from an adjacent router. Also, it is worth considering > that this problem hypothesis supposes that a DoS attack is launched from a > trusted router address. Even for this scenario, however, the document does > provide protection. The normative descriptions to which the quote above > refers are: > >> > >> - The previous paragraph from section 9.2 (requirement for use of > ACLs; slightly reworded later in this email to the new proposed text): > >> > >> ---------- > >> A router MUST support an access control list (ACL) mechanism to > >> filter out Queries from clients and Requests from peer router > >> addresses that are unauthorized or that are beyond a specified > >> administrative boundary. This filtering could, for example, be > >> specified via a list of allowed/disallowed client and peer addresses > >> or subnets for the Mtrace2 protocol port. If a Query or Request is > >> received from an unauthorized address or one beyond the specified > >> administrative boundary, the Query/Request MUST NOT be processed. > >> The router MAY, however, perform rate limited logging of such events. > >> ---------- > >> > >> and > >> > >> - Section 4.2.1 (required validity checks to force rejection of a > Request message from a source that is not an adjacent router): > >> > >> ---------- > >> 4.2.1. Request Packet Verification > >> > >> If the Mtrace2 Request does not come from an adjacent router, or if > >> the Request is not addressed to this router, or if the Request is > >> addressed to a multicast group which is not a link-scoped group > >> (i.e., 224.0.0.0/24 for IPv4, FFx2::/16 [3] for IPv6), it MUST be > >> silently ignored. The Generalized TTL Security Mechanism (GTSM) [14] > >> SHOULD be used by the router to determine whether the router is > >> adjacent or not. > >> ---------- > > > > Unless I'm missing something, this just restricts things to a *node* > which is adjacent. But if I'm a device that's on the same LAN as a router > (which isn't a crazy proposition, ISTM), then why can't I mount this attack? > > Only an adjacent *multicast router* can send requests, because a request > is transformed from a query initiated by a downstream node/device and > forwarded toward the source/RP > But the difference between a request and a response is just some bits in the packet. And so what stops some other host on the LAN from sending something that claims to be a request. > In your example, you are a valid *user (or device)* and send Request, and > can attack someone. But in our definition, you cannot send any Requests > because you are not a valid *multicast router*. > Yes, but that needs to be technically enforced, not just stated. The problem you may think here is that the ACLs in general do not validate > the Request is traversed from valid (or invalid) routers as the message > types cannot be specified in ACLs, right? > If we define a *particular* ACL entry to specify accepted/non-accepted IP > addresses (or ranges) or admin boundaries for each of three mtrace message > types, Query/Request/Reply, will your concern be disappeared? > I think so, if you require its use. > To protect against spoofing of Request packet, as Kerry said, > > > NOTE: To protect against spoofing of Request packets by a trusted > host, some authentication mechanism such as use of an Authentication Header > (AH) between routing peers should be also considered. However, discussion > of such external authentication mechanisms is out of the scope of this > document. > > Also, router validation is in general defined in the routing protocol > specifications and routers can run the authentication mechanisms. We do not > provide an mtrace unique/specific authentication mechanism for routers in > this document. But as the example, we can describe the PIM case to verify > adjacent PIM neighbor routers, if it's helpful. > I don't follow this. > Given that we're a week from Montreal, it might be easier to just try to > meet there. What say you? > > Although Kerry may not, I'll be there. > I asked a slot to report the current situation in the Mboned WG meeting. > Please come to the meeting. > I have to be at RTCWEB. But before the f2f discussions or the meeting, I need to understand and > clarify problems you have been thinking. > The point of the F2F discussion is to clarify the issue. -Ekr > Regards, > > Hitoshi > > (snip a lot) > >
- Re: [MBONED] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [MBONED] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Hitoshi Asaeda
- Re: [MBONED] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Hitoshi Asaeda
- Re: [MBONED] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [MBONED] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [MBONED] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Hitoshi Asaeda
- Re: [MBONED] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Kerry Meyer
- Re: [MBONED] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Kerry Meyer
- Re: [MBONED] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [MBONED] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Hitoshi Asaeda
- Re: [MBONED] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Warren Kumari
- Re: [MBONED] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [MBONED] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Hitoshi Asaeda
- Re: [MBONED] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Hitoshi Asaeda
- Re: [MBONED] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [MBONED] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [MBONED] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Hitoshi Asaeda
- [MBONED] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-mb… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [MBONED] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [MBONED] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Hitoshi Asaeda
- Re: [MBONED] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [MBONED] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [MBONED] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [MBONED] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [MBONED] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [MBONED] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [MBONED] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Warren Kumari
- Re: [MBONED] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Hitoshi Asaeda
- Re: [MBONED] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Warren Kumari
- Re: [MBONED] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Hitoshi Asaeda
- Re: [MBONED] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Hitoshi Asaeda
- Re: [MBONED] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [MBONED] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Kerry Meyer
- Re: [MBONED] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [MBONED] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Kerry Meyer
- Re: [MBONED] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [MBONED] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [MBONED] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Kerry Meyer
- Re: [MBONED] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [MBONED] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Hitoshi Asaeda