Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-v6ops-tunnel-loops-01

Tom Yu <tlyu@MIT.EDU> Mon, 03 January 2011 19:58 UTC

Return-Path: <tlyu@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 014AC3A6B54; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 11:58:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.125
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.125 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.474, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bREY+0MX9nfZ; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 11:58:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-1.mit.edu (DMZ-MAILSEC-SCANNER-1.MIT.EDU [18.9.25.12]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6ABC3A6B53; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 11:58:44 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: 1209190c-b7ba9ae0000009f8-7f-4d222af3e6c5
Received: from mailhub-auth-3.mit.edu ( [18.9.21.43]) by dmz-mailsec-scanner-1.mit.edu (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with SMTP id FA.FE.02552.3FA222D4; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 15:00:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (OUTGOING-AUTH.MIT.EDU [18.7.22.103]) by mailhub-auth-3.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.9.2) with ESMTP id p03K0mCd027974; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 15:00:48 -0500
Received: from cathode-dark-space.mit.edu (CATHODE-DARK-SPACE.MIT.EDU [18.18.1.96]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as tlyu@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.13.6/8.12.4) with ESMTP id p03K0jGh005006 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 3 Jan 2011 15:00:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from tlyu@localhost) by cathode-dark-space.mit.edu (8.12.9.20060308) id p03K0jQg002512; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 15:00:45 -0500 (EST)
To: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
References: <ldvhbdv29lz.fsf@cathode-dark-space.mit.edu> <64AE925C-9A79-433C-A3A7-90FF523C0321@cisco.com>
From: Tom Yu <tlyu@MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2011 15:00:45 -0500
In-Reply-To: <64AE925C-9A79-433C-A3A7-90FF523C0321@cisco.com> (Fred Baker's message of "Wed, 29 Dec 2010 23:44:24 -0800")
Message-ID: <ldvzkrhsqoi.fsf@cathode-dark-space.mit.edu>
Lines: 42
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: IPv6 Operations Chairs <v6ops-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-v6ops-tunnel-loops-01
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Mon, 03 Jan 2011 19:58:46 -0000

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>; writes:

> Question for you. I have left the authors off the paper for the moment.
>
> Mr Gont has recently posted a draft:
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-6man-teredo-loops
>   "Mitigating Teredo Rooting Loop Attacks", Fernando Gont, 7-Sep-10,
>   <draft-gont-6man-teredo-loops-00.txt>
>
> and is pushing for adoption as a working group draft. When asked to
> consider merging his paper with this or another draft, he has been
> unwilling. The chairs have basically told him to discuss his draft
> on the list "and we'll see where it goes".

The draft filename implies 6man, not v6ops; which working group was
asked to consider it?  By "his paper", do you mean the following item
in the Informative References of draft-gont-6man-teredo-loops-00?

   [CPNI-IPv6]
              Gont, F., "Security Assessment of the Internet Protocol
              version 6 (IPv6)",  UK Centre for the Protection of
              National Infrastructure, (to be published).

The Teredo attacks and the protocol-41 attacks appear to be mostly
separate, and probably don't interact, with the possible exception of
using a protocol-41 tunnel to initiate a Teredo routing loop attack.

> One of your criticisms of this draft is that it doesn't cover his
> USENIX material. Would you prefer that this and Mr Gont's draft be
> merged?

A reader of this draft might erroneously conclude that it adequately
addresses all of the attacks described in the USENIX paper.  However,
I think it's sufficient to mention the existence of the Teredo
attacks, citing the USENIX paper and the Teredo routing loop draft,
because someone who reads draft-ietf-v6ops-tunnel-loops might not be
aware of the related attacks without reading the actual USENIX paper.

It would also be a good idea to briefly state that the Teredo attacks
are mostly separate from the protocol-41 attacks, and are therefore
treated in another document.