[secdir] Review of draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-control-04

Shawn Emery <shawn.emery@gmail.com> Fri, 05 June 2020 22:14 UTC

Return-Path: <shawn.emery@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10F023A0EB2; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 15:14:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 hEN8-h7x38FW; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 15:14:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-x62c.google.com (mail-ej1-x62c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F7FD3A0EB0; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 15:14:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-x62c.google.com with SMTP id y13so11740214eju.2; Fri, 05 Jun 2020 15:14:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=J+1bgpTWM6+yQOrJ8lQZWCKA2bSDkNLr5BlpmpjK2kM=; b=ayo7FGq2ddFtX5qQmTrrq3Sn1olLpLzUTdCJtXFTUUqZEALY72sg2hYVkPz3JPo1qo kyzCNqdmJeIIvbwaag2E5rVS4GSW5i7DKG7xZJ6ilcwsW1aSGT4XbdmcTXbWbzo9oX7M 2Ku4bZlLv0RPCQ9W/dPpnimCQpgGEarewhjhusL7/ZsJwg63p7YhZqDZhmE3BwYHhePW tixQc6yD1pqHhednGbimkAi0W/bl4Fl0iuTqKHLQyGKfm7aaEG5U007FZBvXmS5V+de2 vUBCQEZrw6AUTP/59CgmghHqE5tgnuDiJXEl1pciUF0f/26G230Wb8m/TyDujf5tqKMD 8P4g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=J+1bgpTWM6+yQOrJ8lQZWCKA2bSDkNLr5BlpmpjK2kM=; b=m119Bh8I7OpkewvPiwGjmR6ErFSv2BEPsuqrlma4dGn7aVT4EiAIXY78rHnEf1J++j E6JhCddPpUtxWMqptOWu4D+p+4rUzCtlWj1b6lfFFKHlGSpwImA1RzRWGwkNBjqfEBUE xLb5gMv8CJENEcMNFwf6OUK6Ay6Y9x7zoXVt3GgBbNIy4jgQWlm9JrN5HbUj1u6WkMb8 86u9qHYJQ/pkpU8AUWWt6fn61dECrq4gQUXtR/ZYF5e6YwVHIfRc8UUwufmxMfuNpCnH tzgJCDpTDdeg3wIgVPkbsIlPs0WO2l6+L755ulHqJV+t8gbU/nXe640NswVvLUkx8CqV gcPA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532c9N9hVv/C5An339Izes+b6SnjqmAASAxoT/VS4Ri1BdRycD12 FSBvXc/SZbArlMJEhmoFznWbmHCUcF8YCFNIIMGwEBUBdX0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwIDKUmkCbqNkDtH5nfkzT/PwFuUR4e5DeGdlzhU+nFS/L0yxlhrbBAxVqRou3ZPiK9KsMXxDj7RN5XQTbifUY=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:33ce:: with SMTP id zk14mr10600373ejb.2.1591395254614; Fri, 05 Jun 2020 15:14:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Shawn Emery <shawn.emery@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2020 16:14:02 -0600
Message-ID: <CAChzXmZZEGy3J=UqiFvN51Q5dniNZ4aJcjwO2ARpR688ph1dmA@mail.gmail.com>
To: secdir <secdir@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-control.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, Shawn Emery <semery@uccs.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d93f0805a75d94b6"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/DbRr4JvGmZqbxPTn0yGiBTNjfaA>
Subject: [secdir] Review of draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-control-04
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/secdir/>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2020 22:14:18 -0000

Reviewer: Shawn M. Emery
Review result: Ready with nits

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.
These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security
area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these
comments just like any other last call comments.

This draft specifies a filter control through the Distributed
Denial-of-Service Open Threat
Signaling (DOTS) signal channel rather than through the data channel, given
that an active
DDoS attack would essentially disable the data channel.  The assumption is
that the filter
rules would have been constructed and distributed during idle time, before
the attack.

The security considerations section does exist and the defers to the base
RFCs, 8782 and 8783, for confidentiality and integrity requirements.  The
draft
continues that the filtering rules should be constructed before any attack
through
the data channel.  The section finishes with an attack by using the control
filter to
make a DDoS worse and recommends mitigation through operators monitoring
and countering malicious behavior.  They describe this as only a variation
of the
attacks outlined in 8782 and 8783, though I wonder if a new attack vector is
introduced through an attacker enabling a filter that filters monitoring
agents?
However this would have had to have been configured through the data channel
priori, no?

General comments:

Thank you for the examples, this makes the concepts behind the draft more
clear.

Editorial comments:

ietf-dots-signal-channel and ietf-dots-data-channel are now RFCs.

Shawn.
--