IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Mud] [DNSOP] looking for reference for reverse maps do not work

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Mon, 11 April 2022 15:45 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Original-To: mud@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mud@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 721FC3A112A; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 08:45:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.906
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=Oqveamdw; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=ci2nyVW1
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 DhOnGaKn_Bzu; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 08:45:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx5.yitter.info (mx5.yitter.info [159.203.31.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D372E3A1122; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 08:45:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx5.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92958BD5C5; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 15:45:43 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1649691943; bh=Nh43tYT1UxS2UWkzutCDJJRkJ6h0P2/en/DUkunrLuM=; h=From:Subject:Date:References:Cc:In-Reply-To:To:From; b=Oqveamdw7YqK0rpwlZWh7uZKQNGq+/DMZq41UANRw/1j8jnyxVugvSzPOucssuTSK 86rcxVL/Cew2dLX/gCszBe3Dqgo1/mKNes9lD9bu4OwgTCo9Sgq9Ua4l04luV2wzFx yl2qowdAiS0c2j0YlQt9dw7q89T/voesUAX4rxww=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx5.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx5.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V4uScjukLMiG; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 15:45:41 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-9F2151B5-34BA-4095-8D13-CFB6B0331CA6"
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1649691941; bh=Nh43tYT1UxS2UWkzutCDJJRkJ6h0P2/en/DUkunrLuM=; h=From:Subject:Date:References:Cc:In-Reply-To:To:From; b=ci2nyVW1Q9H79yuZV1pDNZotPInsXt9L3SpOOICFz0PDgaNcax8erlSH5nSgPmEsA N0ZMn69OdrFvaUCQgaLHSzhYaKa1K3UD3m5dsV+Lbg41iYKOMlPrvMuUixE37cX0gX MMU+5wukJPkHqiv4S2UNq/L92QgE9v8U/zhwgbYg=
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 11:45:39 -0400
Message-Id: <92E310C3-B9FA-4C8D-AB9A-06E069086BE2@anvilwalrusden.com>
References: <24231.1649691469@localhost>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org, mud@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <24231.1649691469@localhost>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mud/ST2G__rkWZXq9QmP0yCLg4lc8Mg>
Subject: Re: [Mud] [DNSOP] looking for reference for reverse maps do not work
X-BeenThere: mud@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of Manufacturer Ussage Descriptions <mud.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mud>, <mailto:mud-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mud/>
List-Post: <mailto:mud@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mud-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mud>, <mailto:mud-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 15:45:52 -0000

I tried to document this ages ago in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations/, and got so many contradictory edits (see the history) that the final version ended up saying “A or maybe not-A, or maybe both, your choice,” so the then-chairs decided the document wasn’t worth sending through publication. 

A

— 
Andrew Sullivan 
Please excuse my clumbsy thums

> On Apr 11, 2022, at 11:38, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi, in reviews of
>  https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-iot-dns-considerations-04.html
> 
> I was asked to expand upon why the reverse map can not be intelligently used  
> for MUD ACLs. (section 3, XXX stuff)
> (MUD controllers, upon being presented with ACLs made up of
> names need to do forward lookups of the names and build ACLs based upon the
> IP addresses.)
> 
> There are two aspects of this:
>  1) even in an ideal situation, it takes too long on the first packet to
>     extract a name from an IP address.  Yes, that could be aggresively cached.
> 
>  2) forward:reverse maps are N:M mappings, often with unidirectional parts, and often
>     broken or not delegated.
> 
>     Further, there is no authorization of the mappings, so an attacker who
>     wants to be able to reach IP address 2001:db8::abcd, can insert a
>     reverse name of their choice, including updates.example.com, which is
>     permitted by the MUD ACL.
> 
> While I can write the above paragraph, I don't feel that it's detailed enough
> for what is needed, and I feel that we (the IETF) must have documented the
> security issues with reverse/forward mismatched at least twice over the past
> 40 years.
> 
> I'm looking for a good well reviewed reference to use rather than repeating
> this again.
> 
> -- 
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email