Re: [Ntp] Antwort: Re: Symmetric mode

Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com> Thu, 22 September 2022 07:40 UTC

Return-Path: <mlichvar@redhat.com>
X-Original-To: ntp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ntp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BB87C1522A6 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Sep 2022 00:40:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.378
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.571, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.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 bBhoaWTjfQFK for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Sep 2022 00:40:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2EABC14CE29 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Sep 2022 00:40:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1663832456; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=j49giLHYzhk3IhJG5a/PQQDjwTr7VKrsLTcIbrya+dQ=; b=jMrQ8KXnSfV5MWatNOt3xz3azlvBIR41aJtMpe87v7tFYMGjEdoxK/goX5HAbJP9sixHF1 Q0XcnI/vcL0M0Mr2aGJggmE4NseYebuOOY9c8HTVzVo/92zhVwJYGVtYWM9J4sLmisPn3l M/QstfGv4WCusSDPClKNGFFmlnj8Vk8=
Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-542-CoaJtwo2NjC5VfYPMlTH1g-1; Thu, 22 Sep 2022 03:40:54 -0400
X-MC-Unique: CoaJtwo2NjC5VfYPMlTH1g-1
Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6AC21858282; Thu, 22 Sep 2022 07:40:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (unknown [10.43.135.229]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A8EEF40C2064; Thu, 22 Sep 2022 07:40:53 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2022 09:40:52 +0200
From: Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com>
To: Danny Mayer <mayer@pdmconsulting.net>
Cc: kristof.teichel=40ptb.de@dmarc.ietf.org, ntp@ietf.org
Message-ID: <YywRhCmTD4mt8KTy@localhost>
References: <880b8ec4-e112-e2e2-f48c-c940064bc749@pdmconsulting.net> <mayer@pdmconsulting.net> <796c33e6-02dc-0665-c8a2-a143f9100bdd@pdmconsulting.net> <20220919024614.4AB8328C1E2@107-137-68-211.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net> <YygwAeTMeSHXXk6t@localhost> <OF42F0D0F6.E94FA935-ONC12588C3.005225C3-C12588C3.0054DC8B@ptb.de> <d13df0b6-7c47-820e-5dbd-21dd7e2d4801@pdmconsulting.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <d13df0b6-7c47-820e-5dbd-21dd7e2d4801@pdmconsulting.net>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.1
X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0
X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/-hNMYldneoplKY68qMS47FJBRdE>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] Antwort: Re: Symmetric mode
X-BeenThere: ntp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Time Protocol <ntp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ntp>, <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ntp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ntp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp>, <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2022 07:40:57 -0000

On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 07:30:06PM -0400, Danny Mayer wrote:
> > Again, could you qualify which of these statements you disagree with
> > and/or how so?
> 
> Symmetric peer associations are not ephemeral since both sides keep
> information of each other the same way that any client does.

Quoting from RFC 5905:
  Ephemeral associations are mobilized upon the arrival of a
  packet and are demobilized upon error or timeout.

> An attacker
> cannot really replay an authenticated message as it would be rejected as
> already received.

The peer doesn't know if a received message is a new one or it was
already sent before by one of the peers. It doesn't have an infinite
storage and there can be messages lost in the network.

ntpd remembers only the last received packet. You can replay any
previous message from the other peer, or the peer's own messages (last
or previous).

> I'm not sure what is meant by limiting IP addresses to
> prevent that since a replay attack would have to use the same IP address to
> send the packet.

The IP addresses and ports are not included in the data authenticated
by the NTP MAC. You can replay an authenticated NTP messages from any
address and any port.

If you restrict a key to an address and port, the advantage of the
ephemeral association over persistent association is lost. And if you
specify the other peer on both ends, you can just as well use the
client/server mode. It will double the NTP traffic, but it will be
more secure.

-- 
Miroslav Lichvar