[secdir] sec-dir review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-fragmentation-06

Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com> Thu, 03 April 2014 14:20 UTC

Return-Path: <derek@ihtfp.com>
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 3AAEA1A01D5; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 07:20:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.289
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.289 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611] autolearn=no
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 MCHwWFpPnG0G; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 07:20:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.ihtfp.org (MAIL2.IHTFP.ORG [204.107.200.7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8A541A01CE; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 07:20:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ihtfp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B58BE2034; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 10:20:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail2.ihtfp.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail2.ihtfp.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 20433-01; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 10:20:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mocana.ihtfp.org (unknown [IPv6:fe80::224:d7ff:fee7:8924]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mocana.ihtfp.org", Issuer "IHTFP Consulting Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by mail2.ihtfp.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78684E2033; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 10:20:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from warlord@localhost) by mocana.ihtfp.org (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id s33EKMux015976; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 10:20:22 -0400
From: Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com>
To: iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 10:20:22 -0400
Message-ID: <sjmzjk2ijfd.fsf@mocana.ihtfp.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.2a
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/J1eEZPVDZ7QxYkWGvObpoSX_DXU
Cc: ipsecme-chairs@tools.ietf.org, svan@elvis.ru
Subject: [secdir] sec-dir review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-fragmentation-06
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 14:20:36 -0000

Hi,

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 describes the way to avoid IP fragmentation of large
   IKEv2 messages.  This allows IKEv2 messages to traverse network
   devices that don't allow IP fragments to pass through.

I see no major issues with this document.

There is still a minor issue where you move the exhaustion attack from
the IP layer to the IKE layer -- an attacker could, theoretically,
fill an IKE session with incomplete fragments causing it to use
resources waiting for missing fragments.

-derek
-- 
       Derek Atkins                 617-623-3745
       derek@ihtfp.com             www.ihtfp.com
       Computer and Internet Security Consultant