Re: [perpass] "Guide to intranet protection"?

Eric Burger <eburger@cs.georgetown.edu> Thu, 28 November 2013 11:36 UTC

Return-Path: <eburger@cs.georgetown.edu>
X-Original-To: perpass@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: perpass@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 805C71AE02A for <perpass@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 03:36:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 3GmTtiIrg3xO for <perpass@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 03:36:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from karma.cs.georgetown.edu (karma.cs.georgetown.edu [141.161.20.3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E8FC1ADF5B for <perpass@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 03:36:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by karma.cs.georgetown.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23E614737A for <perpass@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 06:36:35 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at cs.georgetown.edu
Received: from karma.cs.georgetown.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (karma.cs.georgetown.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KfmYNZcSTrf4 for <perpass@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 06:36:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [192.168.15.104] (ip68-100-74-215.dc.dc.cox.net [68.100.74.215]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by karma.cs.georgetown.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80C1847366 for <perpass@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 06:36:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Eric Burger <eburger@cs.georgetown.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8500FEF6-F745-4C31-952A-BF6358DF1DCE"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
Message-Id: <F1E81972-34D8-419A-95D7-61060CD3C3CD@cs.georgetown.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 06:36:29 -0500
References: <5295FC4F.7060309@dcrocker.net> <5295FDE8.5000402@cs.tcd.ie> <m2mwkpgpi0.wl%randy@psg.com> <5296C8CC.2060508@dcrocker.net> <027a01ceebfb$df99f290$9ecdd7b0$@huitema.net> <m2d2llgisa.wl%randy@psg.com> <5297142D.6010101@cs.tcd.ie>
To: perpass <perpass@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <5297142D.6010101@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 03:38:41 -0800
Subject: Re: [perpass] "Guide to intranet protection"?
X-BeenThere: perpass@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "The perpass list is for IETF discussion of pervasive monitoring. " <perpass.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/perpass>, <mailto:perpass-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/perpass/>
List-Post: <mailto:perpass@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:perpass-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass>, <mailto:perpass-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 11:36:38 -0000

I would offer the problem is not securing links (VPN) or backbones (links), but to remind people of this (seemingly obsolete) IETF principle called ‘end-to-end.’ In the context of security, it is that one cannot presume security because you happen to own the network. Bad things happen within a single, private network for a whole host of reasons. So, lock down stuff at the endpoints.

Put eight pages of boilerplate on the above and I just wrote the entire ID Dave suggested.

On Nov 28, 2013, at 5:00 AM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 11/28/2013 06:08 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> Randy is quite right.
>> 
>> has to happen occasionally
> 
> :-)
> 
>>> The attacks reported in the news article were against the private
>>> optical fibers linking the geographically distributed data centers of
>>> large companies like Google or Yahoo. A discussion about that should
>>> start with the folks in charge of securing these data centers at
>>> Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Microsoft, et cetera. I can see some
>>> difficulties, because a fair bit of the data centers architectures is
>>> probably treated as trade secret. And I am really not sure that the
>>> IETF is the best place to conduct such discussions.
>> 
>> we had/have the same oroblem with datacenter* wgs.  the folk who really
>> do it think of it as secret sauce.  
> 
> Yep, that's the problem all right. However, we do sometimes
> get folks who are willing to document stuff like that that
> they've done, so if there are any out there then they should
> know that we'd love to see that draft, could get them some
> help with writing it if that's needed and with moving it
> through the process-maze.
> 
> And as Dave said, there is a potential benefit if more
> organisations secure their internal networks since a lot of
> them are inter-dependent one way or another via cloudy-foo
> stuff.
> 
> Cheers,
> S.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> perpass mailing list
> perpass@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass