Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-isis-sbfd-discriminator-02 (draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base)

"Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com> Thu, 19 November 2015 22:18 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana@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 D253A1B3661; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 14:18:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.086
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.086 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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.585, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 GTHDCNZnkBYv; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 14:18:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09E391B3663; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 14:18:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3112; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1447971493; x=1449181093; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=Ox+8c0c3aVwo0JvBw2vUSexxpFpjUgbWkW/VkXtQ93w=; b=eZXIzHJyat7q0foqPkDAVdXAUtFanrGPt+z/WzUMYAfCH3gxc/i0HCL/ fIpZcbXvLEU/zWVy+WTNTegFuMjPw/GSexWYbQ24t2w2sQ/x61O1DPmHk cf57dVTIqeO1K3rwNdf/POzyHDtRgTs1fmUajUNakVT9fot+gT+4J3VkY M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AMAgBNSU5W/40NJK1eDoMtgUIGvngBD?= =?us-ascii?q?YFlhg8CgVU4FAEBAQEBAQGBCoQ0AQEBBDo/DAYBCA4DBAEBHwk5FAkKBAENBYg?= =?us-ascii?q?uwD8BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBGoZUAYR9iTkBBJJqg2IBjS2BW5IYhGKDc?= =?us-ascii?q?QEfAQFCgkSBAj5yAYQYgQcBAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,319,1444694400"; d="scan'208";a="208837750"
Received: from alln-core-8.cisco.com ([173.36.13.141]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 19 Nov 2015 22:18:12 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com (xch-aln-002.cisco.com [173.36.7.12]) by alln-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tAJMICTJ010303 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 19 Nov 2015 22:18:12 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-002.cisco.com (173.36.7.12) by XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com (173.36.7.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 16:18:11 -0600
Received: from xch-aln-002.cisco.com ([173.36.7.12]) by XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com ([173.36.7.12]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.000; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 16:18:11 -0600
From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>
To: Tom Yu <tlyu@mit.edu>, "draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: secdir review of draft-ietf-isis-sbfd-discriminator-02 (draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base)
Thread-Index: AQHRIxgteMcoWJPLzE2CHXNZxBofNg==
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 22:18:11 +0000
Message-ID: <D273B455.EB00E%aretana@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.117.15.3]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <9784BAC79A4D1C42AD8BA1CC4C8349F5@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/o7CSlWeRPh4-BZBTI_eDyoBM7ak>
Cc: "Les Ginsberg \(ginsberg\)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, "draft-ietf-isis-sbfd-discriminator.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-isis-sbfd-discriminator.all@tools.ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "bfd-chairs@ietf.org" <bfd-chairs@ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-isis-sbfd-discriminator-02 (draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base)
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 19 Nov 2015 22:18:15 -0000

Tom:

Hi!

I'm cc'ing the authors of draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base on this thread so
that your comments can be considered as they update the document.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

On 11/18/15, 2:28 PM, "Tom Yu" <tlyu@mit.edu> wrote:

>Given that S-BFD is still in AD Evaluation, it seems that there is still
>an opportunity to update the S-BFD Security Considerations, so that the
>IS-IS draft will no longer point to apparently absent text in the S-BFD
>Security Considerations.
>
>"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> writes:
>
>> Tom -
>>
>> Thanx for the review.
>>
>> If you are not happy with the Security section of the base S-BFD draft
>>it seems to me it makes the most sense to address any issues in that
>>document. Trying to make up for any shortcomings in S-BFD draft by
>>adding to  the IGP drafts (there is a similar OSPF S-BFD draft) when the
>>IGPs are merely acting as a transport for opaque information (as you
>>say) does not seem appropriate to me.
>>
>> Can we close on this issue?
>>
>>    Les
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Tom Yu [mailto:tlyu@mit.edu]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 7:06 PM
>>> To: iesg@ietf.org; secdir@ietf.org; draft-ietf-isis-sbfd-
>>> discriminator.all@tools.ietf.org
>>> Subject: secdir review of draft-ietf-isis-sbfd-discriminator-02
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> Summary: ready with nits
>>> 
>>> I agree with the first paragraph of the Security Considerations, in
>>>that I think
>>> it's unlikely that this document introduces security risks for IS-IS,
>>>which as I
>>> understand it, effectively transports the proposed S-BFD
>>>discriminators as an
>>> uninterpreted opaque payload.
>>> 
>>> The second paragraph
>>> 
>>>    Advertisement of the S-BFD discriminators does make it possible for
>>>    attackers to initiate S-BFD sessions using the advertised
>>>    information.  The vulnerabilities this poses and how to mitigate
>>>them
>>>    are discussed in the Security Considerations section of [S-BFD].
>>> 
>>> refers to the Security Considerations of the [S-BFD] base document.
>>>The [S-
>>> BFD] Security Considerations describe some strengthening practices, but
>>> doesn't seem to describe the vulnerabilities in significant detail.
>>> [S-BFD] Security Considerations seems to describe an attack where
>>>someone
>>> impersonates the responder, but not one where someone impersonates an
>>> initiator.
>>> 
>>> Other sections of [S-BFD] might imply the existence of this sort of
>>> vulnerability, but the Security considerations seems not to mention it
>>> explicitly.  I'm not sure whether it's best to leave things alone,
>>>revise this
>>> document, or revise [S-BFD].
>>> 
>>> -Tom