[secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-teas-te-express-path-03

"Christian Huitema" <huitema@huitema.net> Tue, 29 September 2015 04:57 UTC

Return-Path: <huitema@huitema.net>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B1AE1A03AA for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 21:57:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.801
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.801 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=unavailable
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 gr1iRobg1G1T for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 21:57:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from xsmtp12.mail2web.com (xsmtp12.mail2web.com [168.144.250.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11B851A03A5 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 21:57:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from internal.xmail02.myhosting.com ([10.5.2.12] helo=xmail02.myhosting.com) by xsmtp12.mail2web.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <huitema@huitema.net>) id 1Zgmys-0006Yo-8I for secdir@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 00:57:36 -0400
Received: (qmail 18569 invoked from network); 29 Sep 2015 04:57:32 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO huitema1) (Authenticated-user:_huitema@huitema.net@[24.16.156.113]) (envelope-sender <huitema@huitema.net>) by xmail02.myhosting.com (qmail-ldap-1.03) with ESMTPA for <draft-ietf-teas-te-express-path@tools.ietf.org>; 29 Sep 2015 04:57:32 -0000
From: "Christian Huitema" <huitema@huitema.net>
To: <iesg@ietf.org>, "'secdir'" <secdir@ietf.org>, <draft-ietf-teas-te-express-path@tools.ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 21:57:36 -0700
Message-ID: <00c301d0fa73$5d0053f0$1700fbd0$@huitema.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00C4_01D0FA38.B0A17BF0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0
Thread-Index: AdD6cUGBKeVv7UUNSbGaXvmeokPjrg==
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/IWH4_x3QCs1LSqDRze8FFm_Ujtw>
Subject: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-teas-te-express-path-03
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 04:57:39 -0000

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 document is ready for publication as an informational RFC.

 

Draft-ietf-teas-te-express-path provides considerations on the use of
performance criteria such as delay, loss and jitter when performing path
selection when using routing protocols IS-IS or OSPF. The document  warns
developers against using poor criteria and causing oscillation. It provides
guidance on the handling of paths whose measured criteria have changed.

 

The security section states that “This document is not currently believed to
introduce new security concerns.” Well, I currently believe that the authors
may be correct about that. The only potential attack that I can think of
would involve subtle manipulations of the criteria measurements in order to
induce path oscillations. Such attack scenario does not feel very realistic
or very serious. In any case that would not be a “new” attack due to this
specific draft, but rather an existing attack on IS-IS or OSPF.

 

-- Christian Huitema