Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-6lo-btle-13

Chris Lonvick <> Wed, 08 July 2015 14:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFFBC1B36CD; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 07:34:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F3xwufCnyBb9; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 07:34:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62F711B3469; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 07:34:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obdbs4 with SMTP id bs4so151830133obd.3; Wed, 08 Jul 2015 07:34:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=RC4eAfT10iykulqo1ONmKKpoK8Y0hTKefQrYT0uLQWQ=; b=wsvP3OSleZWUCuumSmyLz0miOA1xiIr3a3knIoMN7rqqBnUOjBXuVPVkdsfjQ8/BKB RHDqgrhGcle/Q5WdSf5rYg6Mqt5u7Rf3VTGIWqJ1NXwUhz6yFZmdzvN2A/NqfRqV23Mc 3lJRO/1hba+QfXiuRbo3JTOpC1QAfoKNmFEje2uqwAkApm1mgzQ6esHncZpAc97CTFiD ImzxRXEBqIlo+4JynS06/lbQRzh9WsYhCAeMl4E8nXaqOh5o6m/PqjGIA1TkdcO6DAGV i8dQEIpOiVfbe8VADyBZT76A8tzNhgG+qGf/GTtQKaLGnnRkKKPVV/1TIcPHiwdvLEmN CGwQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id p203mr9482699oib.108.1436366060902; Wed, 08 Jul 2015 07:34:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Chriss-MacBook-Air.local ([2601:2c0:8000:4fc0:940c:797d:f9de:3646]) by with ESMTPSA id mg19sm992603oeb.10.2015. (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 08 Jul 2015 07:34:20 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 09:34:19 -0500
From: Chris Lonvick <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "" <>, "" <>,
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-6lo-btle-13
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 14:34:23 -0000


I have re-reviewed this document. Overall, a lot of very good changes 
have been made.
I appreciate the additions to the Security Considerations section. Both 
of those are well
written and give appropriate guidance.

I went back and re-read what I had asked about discussing multicast as a 
attack vector. My apologies, but I didn't make myself clear. I was 
asking about what
would happen if a device on the Internet were to start sending multicast 
packets to
the 6LBR attempting to get it to forward them to the 6LNs. I'm thinking 
that would
cause a great deal of overhead processing on the 6LBR and perhaps 
overwhelm the
Bluetooth network. Is there a way to prevent or mitigate that?

Best regards,

On 6/3/15 6:23 PM, Chris Lonvick wrote:
> 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.
> Overall, the document is well written and explains the concepts well.
> I saw that a "test interface" is defined in Section 2.1.  I would like
> to see some guidance in the Security Considerations section about this.
> Hopefully the guidance will describe how the interface is secured, or
> that it can be secured by an operator.
> Multicast is mentioned several times throughout the document mostly
> saying that the Bluetooth LE link layer does not support it.  I
> would like to see this addressed in the Security Considerations section
> as well to alert implementers and operators that this may be a point
> of attack.  Any guidance on how to prevent an active, malicious denial
> of service attack using multicast would be appreciated.
<remainder elided for brevity>