IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Tue, 10 February 2015 00:51 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.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 EBDFA1A01A9; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 16:51:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 3UZsCNevcrk8; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 16:51:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com [64.89.234.25]) (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 4F4BF1A0193; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 16:51:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07566DA0290; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 00:51:31 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-03.win.nominum.com [64.89.235.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D035153E082; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 16:51:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.20.107] (71.233.43.215) by CAS-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (64.89.235.66) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 16:51:30 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <54D95064.3090307@si6networks.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 19:51:25 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <190AFABC-6EA6-4B48-B13B-5F1EC86CE205@nominum.com>
References: <20150207194616.20651.30892.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.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> <54D94764.7030509@si6networks.com> <757363AB-66DB-422C-99D0-BCE3A320AC55@nominum.com> <54D95064.3090307@si6networks.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Originating-IP: [71.233.43.215]
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsec/_izdEPkKnoTXapfCEIJNO7nqEr0>
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>, "opsec@ietf.org" <opsec@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield.ad@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield.ad@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield.shepherd@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield.shepherd@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "opsec-chairs@ietf.org" <opsec-chairs@ietf.org>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 00:51:33 -0000

On Feb 9, 2015, at 7:27 PM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
> If there's a transport protocol that
> happens to look like RFC6564, and it is followed by data that looks like
> DHCPv6/UDP, your code will fail.

You mean if there is an unknown transport protocol header that looks like RFC 6564, and it is followed by a next header type of UDP, and that UDP packet happens to be a well-formed DHCP packet, and happens to match the criteria of DHCPv6-guard, then the switch will drop it?   Yes, this is true.   However, in your proposal, the switch will also drop it, so we haven't lost anything.  Moreover, this is easy to fix: update the switch to support the new protocol header.  (Yes, I realize that my definition of easy is a bit optimistic, but under the circumstances I think that's okay.)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email