Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-opsec-protect-control-plane-04
"Glen Zorn" <gwz@net-zen.net> Wed, 15 December 2010 05:27 UTC
Return-Path: <gwz@net-zen.net>
X-Original-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F8D43A6E3F for <secdir@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 21:27:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.395
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.395 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.204, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FIHsDoQTRDZx for <secdir@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 21:26:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p3plsmtpa01-10.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plsmtpa01-10.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [72.167.82.90]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 32C883A6FD6 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 21:26:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 31454 invoked from network); 15 Dec 2010 05:28:40 -0000
Received: from unknown (124.120.200.9) by p3plsmtpa01-10.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (72.167.82.90) with ESMTP; 15 Dec 2010 05:28:39 -0000
From: Glen Zorn <gwz@net-zen.net>
To: 'Sean Turner' <turners@ieca.com>, draft-ietf-opsec-protect-control-plane@tools.ietf.org
References: <001201cb9b59$acd02d70$06708850$@net> <4D07926A.9030007@ieca.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D07926A.9030007@ieca.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 12:28:30 +0700
Organization: Network Zen
Message-ID: <001001cb9c18$ea998970$bfcc9c50$@net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AcubprmL7kvQCK7lSdavRidlJoTNWQAcWvZw
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: opsec-chairs@tools.ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-opsec-protect-control-plane-04
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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, 15 Dec 2010 05:27:00 -0000
Sean Turner [mailto:turners@ieca.com] writes: > I hoping that this was a typo. I pulled out all the registered RADIUS > ports from http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers and 1645/1646: > > sightline 1645/tcp SightLine > sightline 1645/udp SightLine > # admin <iana&sightlinesystems.com> > sa-msg-port 1646/tcp sa-msg-port > sa-msg-port 1646/udp sa-msg-port > # Eric Whitehill <Eric.Whitehill&itt.com> > > > radius 1812/tcp RADIUS > radius 1812/udp RADIUS > # [RFC2865] > radius-acct 1813/tcp RADIUS Accounting > radius-acct 1813/udp RADIUS Accounting > # [RFC2866] > radsec 2083/tcp Secure Radius Service > radsec 2083/udp Secure Radius Service > # Mike McCauley <mikem&open.com.au> May 2005 > radius-dynauth 3799/tcp RADIUS Dynamic Authorization > radius-dynauth 3799/udp RADIUS Dynamic Authorization > # RFC 3576 - July 2003 > > Should 1812 & 1813 be listed or also 2083 & 3799? radsec isn't RADIUS; RFC 3576 isn't a core part of RADIUS, either. I think that 1812 & 1813 are fine in the context of this example. > > spt > > On 12/14/10 1:39 AM, Glen Zorn 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. > > > > Section 3.1 says: > > > > o Permit RADIUS authentication and accounting replies from RADIUS > > servers 198.51.100.9, 198.51.100.10, 2001:DB8:100::9, and 2001: > > DB8:100::10 that are listening on UDP ports 1645 and 1646. > Note > > that this doesn't account for a server using Internet Assigned > > Numbers Authority (IANA) ports 1812 and 1813 for RADIUS. > > > > So, in other words, RADIUS traffic on the ports (officially assigned > for > > more than ten years now) will be blocked. This seems like a very poor > > example. > > > > > > > >
- [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-opsec-protec… Glen Zorn
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-opsec-pr… Sean Turner
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-opsec-pr… Sean Turner
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-opsec-pr… Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-opsec-pr… Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-opsec-pr… Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-opsec-pr… Glen Zorn
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-opsec-pr… Glen Zorn
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-opsec-pr… Glen Zorn
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-opsec-pr… Glen Zorn
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-opsec-pr… Joe Abley
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-opsec-pr… Rodney Dunn
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-opsec-pr… Joe Abley
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-opsec-pr… Rodney Dunn
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-opsec-pr… Ronald Bonica
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-opsec-pr… Joe Abley
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-opsec-pr… Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)