Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement-09

Phillip Hallam-Baker <> Sat, 12 January 2019 05:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2718130F6F; Fri, 11 Jan 2019 21:06:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hkwNyYOqfIyg; Fri, 11 Jan 2019 21:06:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0CEC7124408; Fri, 11 Jan 2019 21:06:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id x202so13954663oif.13; Fri, 11 Jan 2019 21:06:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=3LN2xAqI4hE9dnEWTLvelerNgc4E+W+sjfrxUqZmyb8=; b=s3783UWAZOrv+wMQ4PmPYm8hW33Mf8wzx31Y7P8JoOs9tRmBngXw8HdEIbVLBTypee yo8oYCWs0xpIUY9eaZZ/QXBYu7S5Xn+NJBLLwrDYEABo2woPsqYcKvOcri742iZv1nHK 8LOHRBeOfYy5yW43nMZpWXOryxcFU5a0c7Ri4rt1adaBFIRgi48WVrpCL6Wq8053fkzL nHk4rSK/b6PUqYcEMyw7cRjFa9EQR2Y1O079CZoxRi+bpscnzqGzr4pIXlt9PadnzFLG EhovADTVoV2EWT+Nai9XuCwEOXhn2UlU/59VBtzaSvZNFBow5S5jgW4yp6lRzOOIdJHH VH5w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=3LN2xAqI4hE9dnEWTLvelerNgc4E+W+sjfrxUqZmyb8=; b=Q78k/8ZGY8CWTw5vNh+EZwTSkeUefE6umEbLUEP6GdNeoR7g3u1hlr2ae8tnJUOipi ae+5kTJSxiFb/1hntWFjEIWeO+Ox7SmV22BgzCo/qPMO2PQMnnPmFF/fsyhUaQODWYbX rZzAVXNRNqwNvBpRgDq5lM5eEBAt4s/iod5f7KilMBJjwTYfYpn+9cACwxSj5xhP+b11 vfMcdrt3/UmAid65QrD9y5lEyaxgyQLCn6IarWxj+ESsYj8A39MY7g3noJqy66f04hxt lFOM25GUzqWHTvx0QNH6tGdGk9IBftsT22bOxsw/DbvlLE3Dit8RHCB8pAlCs4uSH0GN TzUw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukcg9WrHdE2x8npylQh26J7CkeuGaU4oxlxyDPIsDGmN93GHf520 j72RaavrjBdKNEDI8szmup6csAWXgsdtYc88CC8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN63WgdUfNGAairC7witj67LSYQmg7qw4KVzhgo39KdD7QQT6+SohqJaI9Z/1R8rH1QkQTR9ZLwwOUC6j0onRQM=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:1e08:: with SMTP id m8mr10419695oic.347.1547269578377; Fri, 11 Jan 2019 21:06:18 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <>
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 00:06:06 -0500
Message-ID: <>
To: Stewart Bryant <>
Cc:,, IETF Discussion Mailing List <>,
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000974f15057f3bc5f7"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement-09
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 05:06:21 -0000

If the security considerations are addressed in a different document, this
should be stated in the security considerations section.

On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 12:05 PM Stewart Bryant <>;

> On 07/01/2019 16:11, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> Reviewer: Phillip Hallam-Baker
> Review result: Has Issues
> The document describes the problem and solution pretty clearly. Unfortunately,
> there is no discussion of the security considerations which is not appropriate
> for a document addressing an availability which is a security issue.
> While microloops can form by chance, some consideration should be given to the
> possibility that an attacker could induce a loop to perform a DoS attack.
> In section 1 the text says:
> [RFC8405] defines a solution that satisfies this problem statement
>    and this document captures the reasoning of the provided solution.
> It is safe to assume that the reader of this text would have read
> normative reference RFC8405 and thus would be fully aware of the security
> issues related to the solution being analysed.
> An attacker that had access to a network such that they could induce
> microloops would have the ability to do many worse things to the network.
> If they were able to attack in-band they could poison the routing system
> to take it down in far more interesting ways. Operators use security at the
> physical and network layer to prevent this.
> If they were operating at the physical layer then they could take circuits
> down at will and cause microloops in the base protocol, traffic overloads
> and application malfunction.
> Thus if the attacker could deploy either of those attacks in a network to
> induce micro-loops, then any security considerations in this draft would
> count for nothing.
> The draft is an analysis, and thus I think that it correctly states that
> it introduces no additional matters for security consideration.
> - Stewart