Re: [secdir] sec-dir review of draft-ietf-tcpm-persist-04.txt
Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com> Wed, 08 June 2011 13:21 UTC
Return-Path: <derek@ihtfp.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C29F11E80D5; Wed, 8 Jun 2011 06:21:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.988
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.988 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ubfa30z5BJai; Wed, 8 Jun 2011 06:21:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.ihtfp.org (MAIL2.IHTFP.ORG [204.107.200.7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA6E911E80D2; Wed, 8 Jun 2011 06:21:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ihtfp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9635526036E; Wed, 8 Jun 2011 09:21:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail2.ihtfp.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail2.ihtfp.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 22960-04; Wed, 8 Jun 2011 09:21:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from pgpdev.ihtfp.org (IHTFP-DHCP-100.IHTFP.ORG [192.168.248.100]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "cliodev.ihtfp.com", Issuer "IHTFP Consulting Certification Authority" (not verified)) by mail2.ihtfp.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 037B3260326; Wed, 8 Jun 2011 09:21:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from warlord@localhost) by pgpdev.ihtfp.org (8.14.4/8.14.3/Submit) id p58DLWkd017519; Wed, 8 Jun 2011 09:21:32 -0400
From: Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com>
To: "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com>
References: <sjm1uz7yo9h.fsf@pgpdev.ihtfp.org> <4DED059E.5000401@cisco.com> <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC580CE2C5DF@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 09:21:32 -0400
In-Reply-To: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC580CE2C5DF@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com> (Anantha Ramaiah's message of "Mon, 6 Jun 2011 10:16:45 -0700")
Message-ID: <sjm62ogv4pv.fsf@pgpdev.ihtfp.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.2a
Cc: tcpm-chairs@tools.ietf.org, "Mahesh Jethanandani (mahesh)" <mahesh@cisco.com>, secdir@ietf.org, mbashyam@ocarinanetworks.com, iesg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] sec-dir review of draft-ietf-tcpm-persist-04.txt
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 08 Jun 2011 13:21:41 -0000
Hi, If this is the working group concensus then I would ask that you please add a paragraph or two to the Security Considerations section and explain that in more detail, please? Maybe base it on Mahesh's text below? Thanks! -derek "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com> writes: > That’s right, the document in its current form blessed by TCPM is a simple > clarification document of persist condition. > > -Anantha > > PS:- > > FWIW, Linux handles such a scenario. (orphaned connections) > > Code snippet of the relevant function below :- (tcp_timer.c) > > /* Do not allow orphaned sockets to eat all our resources. > > * This is direct violation of TCP specs, but it is required > > * to prevent DoS attacks. It is called when a retransmission timeout > > * or zero probe timeout occurs on orphaned socket. > > * > > * Criteria is still not confirmed experimentally and may change. > > * We kill the socket, if: > > * 1. If number of orphaned sockets exceeds an administratively configured > > * limit. > > * 2. If we have strong memory pressure. > > */ > > static int tcp_out_of_resources(struct sock *sk, int do_reset) > > { > > struct tcp_sock *tp = tcp_sk(sk); > > int orphans = atomic_read(&tcp_orphan_count); > > /* If peer does not open window for long time, or did not transmit > > * anything for long time, penalize it. */ > > if ((s32)(tcp_time_stamp - tp->lsndtime) > 2*TCP_RTO_MAX || !do_reset) > > orphans <<= 1; > > /* If some dubious ICMP arrived, penalize even more. */ > > if (sk->sk_err_soft) > > orphans <<= 1; > > if (tcp_too_many_orphans(sk, orphans)) { > > if (net_ratelimit()) > > printk(KERN_INFO "Out of socket memory\n"); > > /* Catch exceptional cases, when connection requires reset. > > * 1. Last segment was sent recently. */ > > if ((s32)(tcp_time_stamp - tp->lsndtime) <= TCP_TIMEWAIT_LEN | > | > > /* 2. Window is closed. */ > > (!tp->snd_wnd && !tp->packets_out)) > > do_reset = 1; > > if (do_reset) > > tcp_send_active_reset(sk, GFP_ATOMIC); > > tcp_done(sk); > > NET_INC_STATS_BH(LINUX_MIB_TCPABORTONMEMORY); > > return 1; > > } > > return 0; > > } > > From: Mahesh Jethanandani (mahesh) > Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 9:52 AM > To: Derek Atkins > Cc: iesg@ietf.org; secdir@ietf.org; tcpm-chairs@tools.ietf.org; > mbashyam@ocarinanetworks.com; Anantha Ramaiah (ananth) > Subject: Re: sec-dir review of draft-ietf-tcpm-persist-04.txt > > Derek, > > After lot of discussion regarding the scope of this document, the WG felt that > the draft should be limited to clarifying the language in RFC 1122. If you > were to look at earlier versions of the draft, we had a section in the draft > that talked about possible mitigation techniques and socket level API changes > that would be needed to be able to determine which connections were stuck in > persist condition. > > Once the scope was defined as clarifying senders behavior in persist > condition, the WG felt that it was not necessary to have a section that talked > about possible solution. The section was therefore removed. > > On 6/6/2011 8:26 AM, Derek Atkins wrote: > > The document also mentions orphaned connections but does not mention > how to mitigate an attack against systems that have orphaned > connections. > > -- mj > -- Derek Atkins 617-623-3745 derek@ihtfp.com www.ihtfp.com Computer and Internet Security Consultant
- [secdir] sec-dir review of draft-ietf-tcpm-persis… Derek Atkins
- Re: [secdir] sec-dir review of draft-ietf-tcpm-pe… Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
- Re: [secdir] sec-dir review of draft-ietf-tcpm-pe… Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: [secdir] sec-dir review of draft-ietf-tcpm-pe… Derek Atkins