Re: [OPSEC] OPSEC control plane protection draft

"Smith, Donald" <Donald.Smith@qwest.com> Mon, 16 August 2010 21:15 UTC

Return-Path: <Donald.Smith@qwest.com>
X-Original-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CBA03A6ABD for <opsec@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 14:15:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.855
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.855 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.745, BAYES_05=-1.11]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q28-5KWh797W for <opsec@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 14:15:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from suomp64i.qwest.com (suomp64i.qwest.com [155.70.16.237]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 319413A67B5 for <opsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 14:15:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sudnp796.qintra.com (sudnp796.qintra.com [151.116.2.212]) by suomp64i.qwest.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o7GLGSWI026765 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 16 Aug 2010 16:16:28 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from qtdenexhtm20.AD.QINTRA.COM (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sudnp796.qintra.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o7GLGMI4013707; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 15:16:22 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from qtdenexmbm24.AD.QINTRA.COM ([151.119.91.226]) by qtdenexhtm20.AD.QINTRA.COM ([151.119.91.229]) with mapi; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 15:16:22 -0600
From: "Smith, Donald" <Donald.Smith@qwest.com>
To: 'Rob Bird' <robbird@gmail.com>, 'David Dugal' <ddugal@juniper.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 15:16:20 -0600
Thread-Topic: [OPSEC] OPSEC control plane protection draft
Thread-Index: AcrNCatzvqxAjw0ZR9mcYMGNSF8+OBwaF0kw
Message-ID: <B01905DA0C7CDC478F42870679DF0F10091D90BD15@qtdenexmbm24.AD.QINTRA.COM>
References: <45c8c21a1003260906j41580868p12466e6ed42ef3d0@mail.gmail.com> <4BACE777.3010000@juniper.net> <ba2fbc6f1003261027u5c62b7b4od135d00144a83a02@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ba2fbc6f1003261027u5c62b7b4od135d00144a83a02@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "'draft-dugal-opsec-protect-control-plane@tools.ietf.org'" <draft-dugal-opsec-protect-control-plane@tools.ietf.org>, "'opsec@ietf.org'" <opsec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OPSEC] OPSEC control plane protection draft
X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: opsec wg mailing list <opsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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, 16 Aug 2010 21:15:55 -0000

For undesirables in JTK's paper here he specifically did a deny ip any any at the end of the cpp policy for that.

http://aharp.ittns.northwestern.edu/papers/copp.html

The default term for juniper is log and discard.

There isn't a deny ip any any in the draft.



(coffee != sleep) & (!coffee == sleep)
Donald.Smith@qwest.com gcia

> -----Original Message-----
> From: opsec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:opsec-bounces@ietf.org]
> On Behalf Of Rob Bird
> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 11:28 AM
> To: David Dugal
> Cc: draft-dugal-opsec-protect-control-plane@tools.ietf.org;
> opsec@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OPSEC] OPSEC control plane protection draft
>
> This is most excellent. I was just advising a customer this
> morning on this very issue (again).
>
> I look forward to working on this.
> Rob
>
> -
> Rob Bird, Chief Technology Officer
> Red Lambda, Inc.
> "Network security at global scale"
> www.redlambda.com
>
>       On Mar 26, 2010 1:03 PM, "David Dugal"
> <ddugal@juniper.net> wrote:
>
>       -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>       Hash: SHA1
>
>       Hi Richard.
>
>       Thank you very much for the scrutiny, analysis and feedback.  As
>       mentioned during my brief presentation, our hope is that this
>       recommendation by example will provide awareness of a
> possible attack
>       surface occasionally overlooked, especially by smaller or newer
>       installations.
>
>       I appreciate the feedback and will enhance the draft to
> make reference
>       to cryptographic security, as well as attempt to make
> the document IP
>       version agnostic.
>
>       Thank you for your support, both in carefully reading
> the document, and
>       for your willingness to have our draft taken under the
> OPSEC WG wing.
>
>       - ---
>       David G. Dugal                           Support:
> +1-408-745-9500
>       Security Incident Response Team          Direct:
> +1-978-589-0719
>       Juniper Networks                         Mobile:
> +1-603-377-1162
>       Westford, MA, USA                        PGP Key: 0xAB6E02A5
>
>
>       On Fri Mar 26 2010 09:06:40 GMT-0700 (Pacific Daylight
> Time), Richard
>       Graveman <rfgraveman@gmail.com> proclaimed ...
>
>
>       > David,
>       >
>       > I read the draft carefully after the meeting and
> realize that my
>       > comments missed the...
>
>       > .
>       >
>       -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>       Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
>
>       iEYEARECAAYFAkus53cACgkQh59lzatuAqVE9wCgh53mgxNRPWUztlI27aOITHRr
>       2zMAoPb5y3phm260P1zSoDu0LSbUjNcN
>       =kitD
>       -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>       _______________________________________________
>       OPSEC mailing list
>       OPSEC@ietf.org
>       https://www.ietf.o...
>
>

This communication is the property of Qwest and may contain confidential or
privileged information. Unauthorized use of this communication is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful.  If you have received this communication
in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy
all copies of the communication and any attachments.