Re: [Ntp] Public NTP servers already responds to NTPv5

Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com> Mon, 30 November 2020 11:42 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 440303A0964 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 03:42:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.12
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.12 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8IbM53MzSPwE for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 03:42:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [63.128.21.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80AEF3A0962 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 03:42:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1606736556; 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=5FKaTc7iTj692X81mDHHA/vLBfZFX809Wg5MLYNkGVE=; b=JZmyjHPVbOOUOrUZaa30ynheK1eFO4WFj8saRjJqaDyIUBtHhdxCMSFfb8LiToFxGdBxDn bg6jQKgsQf8B08vP5JMQyCE2QqB9ZjCwUw3+ibrav2CQJYOeQM7VFtMGlKvyTU8cJs4EsI 6lWEMHnjaJRM/5C9zpwsZzggx1ATsug=
Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-48-LshWt6ziP9eH_WJtogwBgg-1; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 06:42:32 -0500
X-MC-Unique: LshWt6ziP9eH_WJtogwBgg-1
Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17572873085; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 11:42:31 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (holly.tpb.lab.eng.brq.redhat.com [10.43.134.11]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 646ED60657; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 11:42:29 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 12:42:27 +0100
From: Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com>
To: g16 <g16g16g16@gmail.com>
Cc: ntp@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20201130114227.GH1826178@localhost>
References: <CAFZ=0SzC1cKbMf=9tNDdxYfde9UnD4CcLYZ2EGwvcKMEtp1i1w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAFZ=0SzC1cKbMf=9tNDdxYfde9UnD4CcLYZ2EGwvcKMEtp1i1w@mail.gmail.com>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.11
Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=mlichvar@redhat.com
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/9ye43KfWJvCRasNaH7irQnkETsY>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] Public NTP servers already responds to NTPv5
X-BeenThere: ntp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <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: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 11:42:39 -0000

On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 12:49:09AM +0900, g16 wrote:
> So I surveyed how the currently public NTP servers respond to NTPv5 packets.

Thanks for doing that.

> ## Result
> > NTPv4 format packet that version field is 5
> - 25% response: timeout
> - 65% response: NTPv4 format packet that version field is 5

This seems to be mostly the ntp.org ntpd.

> - 10% response: NTPv4 or NTPv3

This is mostly the NIST NTP implementation.

> > NTPv5 format packet (draft-mlichvar-ntp-ntpv5-00)
> - 10% response: NTPv4 format packet that version field is  5

This seems to be mostly the Google and Cloudflare NTP implementations.

> ## Is this a problem?
> I'm not sure. It may confuse implementations that support nptv5.

I don't think it's a problem. An NTPv5 client following the draft
is supposed to check the client cookie field (replacing the origin
timestamp), which will be incorrect if it is a NTPv4 response using
version 5. For the client it will look like an off-path attacker.
All NTP clients need to be able to deal with unexpected responses.

Please note that the broken servers respond also to versions 6 and 7.
There is no point in trying to make v5 compatible with v4 and
postponing incompatible changes to v6.

-- 
Miroslav Lichvar