IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OPSEC] Ted Lemon's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Mon, 09 February 2015 23:50 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Original-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE3101A8AA9; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 15:50:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 gJsELBBJ7hIy; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 15:50:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from web01.jbserver.net (web01.jbserver.net [IPv6:2a00:8240:6:a::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 00EB21A6EE8; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 15:50:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [186.137.82.224] (helo=[192.168.3.107]) by web01.jbserver.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from <fgont@si6networks.com>) id 1YKy5z-0002a4-4Q; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 00:50:29 +0100
Message-ID: <54D94764.7030509@si6networks.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 20:48:52 -0300
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
References: <20150207194616.20651.30892.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <D97E8BB3-0DB3-4B41-8C91-DBB3121DCEF7@nominum.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1502081507150.24776@shell4.bayarea.net> <72C73500-E6C4-4D75-9CFA-8FE4B012AB9E@nominum.com> <7516AD5C-1152-4020-B050-FA0383B58DBA@viagenie.ca> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1502081734120.24776@shell4.bayarea.net> <97C8D14E-D440-4625-8F26-83AF26917CF2@nominum.com> <54D83E7F.3040207@gmail.com> <E478028B-8FFC-47B4-B12D-F0A32227A726@nominum.com> <54D83FCE.4070804@qti.qualcomm.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1502082137570.16054@shell4.bayarea.net> <96CE509D-3B6E-49B8-98F6-CB8581787D7E@nominum.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1502090708270.22936@shell4.bayarea.net> <174AA530-3993-4894-BCE7-2AE8818EB35E@nominum.com> <54D8F98D.1030101@si6networks.com> <B3474476-3FA1-484E-BAAD-E7A6474BA11C@nominum.com> <54D90EE5.2060002@gmail.com> <5C9CF492-A795-4023-BB91-28B1B52706E4@nominum.com> <54D92987.2080505@gmail.com> <CDA3CF60-BB2E-4F77-B325-B3057C01FBD1@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <CDA3CF60-BB2E-4F77-B325-B3057C01FBD1@nominum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsec/EvHpm8A5bx9PZEtr8mWeKm1R3Ks>
Cc: "draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield@ietf.org>, "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, "draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield.shepherd@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield.shepherd@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield.ad@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield.ad@ietf.org>, "opsec@ietf.org" <opsec@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "opsec-chairs@ietf.org" <opsec-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OPSEC] Ted Lemon's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: opsec wg mailing list <opsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsec>, <mailto:opsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsec/>
List-Post: <mailto:opsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec>, <mailto:opsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 23:50:39 -0000

On 02/09/2015 08:32 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
[....]
>   // tail call to check presumed RFC 6564 header.
>   // if it's actually an unknown protocol header, we may 
>   // have to parse over some garbage before running off
>   // the end of the packet and returning false.
>   // It may also be deliberate garbage, in which case the
>   // same thing will happen, but possibly more slowly.

You're essentially proposing a hack to fix a known protocol design flaw,
instead of accepting the flaw, and allow DHCPv6-shield to comply with
the existing specifications/requirements (RFC7045).

  -- all this under the assumption that RFC6564 gets deployed. In which
case you're essentially declaring "game over" for any new transport
protocol.

I'll just reference this:
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsec/current/msg01834.html>. And
note that you're arguing against 6man's advice in RFC7045.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email