Re: [secdir] SecDir review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig
"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Wed, 14 January 2015 02:08 UTC
Return-Path: <acee@cisco.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 14CDF1A8974; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 18:08:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 33dVWqLGYfWE; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 18:07:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 455D21A8820; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 18:07:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7888; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1421201276; x=1422410876; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=2AbeLsCUcODK+QyUKnA6Mo9Vcv/wPgoSPMOUz01KJ/M=; b=gIzk95M2pNTGynWIM91dOmPPqJ9qw253FpzubgfkPNDSyCLjsnrWxd/q 1nIeh3kznPBDzMgG23zwRGSn32u2tRMBpYMA2hJLcU7ti2X9R84nyqVBJ S4ZUo/l069OaERNREfWO0X9W0rNb/4LtzOggPAkjVBHaU43qimDXVkzSm 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AksIANjOtVStJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABbgwaBKgSDAckLAhx9QwEBAQEBfYQNAQEENFUCAQgcFBQCAh8RJQIEARKIGAMRnnKcYgaQHQ2DYwEBAQEBAQEDAQEBAQEBARuBG4w0gXc6GIJKgUcFjkKFS4F+gUSBD4sJgieDPSKCAR2BUG8BgUR+AQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,753,1413244800"; d="scan'208";a="113046695"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Jan 2015 02:07:55 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com [173.36.12.82]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t0E27tvG000570 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 14 Jan 2015 02:07:55 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x06.cisco.com ([169.254.1.144]) by xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com ([173.36.12.82]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 20:07:55 -0600
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: "Adam W. Montville" <adam.w.montville@gmail.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig.all@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: SecDir review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig
Thread-Index: AQHQL1ZN15yQ//E1nEqbwCq7FRW/cZy+4OYAgAAPAIA=
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 02:07:54 +0000
Message-ID: <D0DB3988.B91C%acee@cisco.com>
References: <47E19730-5BE8-4CC1-9DB3-A341465A5BDB@gmail.com> <D0DB2787.B8DE%acee@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D0DB2787.B8DE%acee@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.197]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="euc-kr"
Content-ID: <34722907102AAD46A88F2BD758A37666@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/MyQ3_YfgLaOBkL7NMCG-lfOY15Q>
Subject: Re: [secdir] SecDir review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig
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: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 02:08:05 -0000
Hi Adam, Here are the updates I’m proposing to address your comments: *** 180,185 **** --- 180,188 ---- Thanks to Martin Vigoureux for Routing Area Directorate review and comments. + Thanks to Adam Montville for Security Area Directorate review and + comments. + Special thanks go to Markus Stenberg for his implementation of this specification in Bird. *************** *** 451,464 **** 5. OSPFv3 Router ID Selection ! An OSPFv3 router requires a unique Router ID for correct protocol ! operation. An OSPFv3 router implementing this specification will ! select a router-id that has a high probability of uniqueness. A ! pseudo-random number SHOULD be used for the OSPFv3 Router ID. The ! generation should be seeded with a variable that is likely to be ! unique in the applicable OSPFv3 router deployment. A good choice of ! seed would be some portion or hash of the Router-Hardware-Fingerprint ! as described in Section 7.2.2. Since there is a possibility of a Router ID collision, duplicate Router ID detection and resolution are required as described in --- 451,465 ---- 5. OSPFv3 Router ID Selection ! An OSPFv3 router requires a unique Router ID within the OSPFv3 ! routing domain for correct protocol operation. An OSPFv3 router ! implementing this specification will select a router-id that has a ! high probability of uniqueness. A pseudo-random number SHOULD be ! used for the OSPFv3 Router ID. The generation SHOULD be seeded with ! a variable that is likely to be unique in the applicable OSPFv3 ! router deployment. A good choice of seed would be some portion or ! hash of the Router-Hardware-Fingerprint as described in ! Section 7.2.2. Since there is a possibility of a Router ID collision, duplicate Router ID detection and resolution are required as described in *************** *** 799,810 **** automatic pairing between devices. These mechanisms can help provide an automatically configured, securely routed network. ! ! ! ! ! ! --- 799,810 ---- automatic pairing between devices. These mechanisms can help provide an automatically configured, securely routed network. ! In deployments where stronger authentification or encryption is ! required, OSPFv3 IPsec [OSPFV3-IPSEC] or stronger OSPFv3 ! Authentication trailer [OSPFV3-AUTH-TRAILER] algorithms MAY be used ! at the expense of additional configuration. The configuration and ! operational description of such deployments is beyond the scope of ! this document. *************** Thanks, Acee On 1/13/15, 8:14 PM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> wrote: >Hi Adam, > >On 1/13/15, 12:26 PM, "Adam W. Montville" <adam.w.montville@gmail.com> >wrote: > >>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 is ready with comments/nits. >> >>Comments >>The document describes necessary mechanisms for OSPFv3 to be >>self-configuring in environments requiring such (e.g. IPv6 home >>networks). >> >>A couple of things stood out to me. First, I inferred from the document >>that the uniqueness of Router IDs is so within the context of the present >>deployment and not, for example, unique between domains. This may be >>common knowledge in the world of OSPF, but wasn¹t to me (at least not >>initially). It could be good to add a sentence about the context of >>Router ID uniqueness early on in the document. > >I will add a statement to section 5. > >> >>Also regarding uniqueness of the ID, Section 5, ³OSPFv3 Router ID >>Selection², indicates that a pseudo-random number SHOULD be used to >>derive the Router ID. Later in that first paragraph: ³The generation >>should be seeded with a variable that is likely to be unique in the >>applicable OSPFv3 router deployment.² Should that ³should² be ³SHOULD²? > >Yes - these two sentences definitely SHOULD be consistent. > >> >>The document clearly recognizes the possibility for Router ID collisions, >>and there does not appear to be a need for a cryptographically sound >>pseudo-random number generation - just enough entropy to make the Router >>ID unique within the deployment domain, and the >>Router-Hardware-Fingerprint TLV (Section 7.2.2) is presented as being >>enough. > >Do you feel that a statement with respect to the pseudo-random algorithm >is necessary? If so, can you suggest some text? > > >> >>Because this document essentially explains the OSPFv3 defaults a router >>should have in order to support auto-configuration, I presumed that the >>security considerations provided in previous OSPFv3 documents would >>essentially be in effect here. This isn¹t explicitly stated in the >>Security Considerations section, but could be without harm, should they >>apply here. The bottom line for me is that it seems that OSPFv3 >>auto-configuration favors usability over security, but without ignoring >>security entirely (e.g. ³auto-configuration can also be combined with >>password configuration or future extensions for automatic pairing between >>devices.²). > >I agree with the above except that the document doesn't address all the >available OSPFv3 security options. Let me add a paragraph. > >I will provide some updated text for review prior to republishing. > >Thanks, >Acee > >
- [secdir] SecDir review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-… Adam W. Montville
- Re: [secdir] SecDir review of draft-ietf-ospf-osp… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [secdir] SecDir review of draft-ietf-ospf-osp… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [secdir] SecDir review of draft-ietf-ospf-osp… Jari Arkko
- Re: [secdir] SecDir review of draft-ietf-ospf-osp… Adam W. Montville