[secdir] sec-dir review of draft-ietf-tcpm-persist-04.txt

Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com> Mon, 06 June 2011 15:26 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 EEDE721F843D; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 08:26:39 -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 mAP4jckDP9Lx; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 08:26:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.ihtfp.org (MAIL2.IHTFP.ORG [204.107.200.7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69C3621F843A; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 08:26:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ihtfp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68E1D26036E; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 11:26:38 -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 31006-01; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 11:26:37 -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 35EE52602A9; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 11:26:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from warlord@localhost) by pgpdev.ihtfp.org (8.14.4/8.14.3/Submit) id p56FQZ5m007524; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 11:26:35 -0400
From: Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com>
To: iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 11:26:34 -0400
Message-ID: <sjm1uz7yo9h.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="us-ascii"
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.2a
Cc: tcpm-chairs@tools.ietf.org, ananth@cisco.com, mbashyam@ocarinanetworks.com, mahesh@cisco.com
Subject: [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: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 15:26:40 -0000

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.

   This document clarifies the Zero Window Probes (ZWP) described in
   Requirements for Internet Hosts [RFC1122].  In particular, it
   clarifies the actions that can be taken on connections which are
   experiencing the ZWP condition.

The security considerations section should refer to section 4 as a
description of the DoS attack, not section 3.  Although it should
still refer to section 3.

Honestly, I find it confusing that the attack is described after some
of the mitigation techniques.  It would make the document flow better,
IMHO, if you describe the attack and then describe how to mitigate the
attack.

The document also mentions orphaned connections but does not mention
how to mitigate an attack against systems that have orphaned
connections.

-derek

-- 
       Derek Atkins                 617-623-3745
       derek@ihtfp.com             www.ihtfp.com
       Computer and Internet Security Consultant