Re: [secdir] Security review of draft-shore-icmp-aup-06

Hilarie Orman <hilarie@purplestreak.com> Thu, 14 November 2013 00:43 UTC

Return-Path: <hilarie@purplestreak.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 E571821F9C1D; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 16:43:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RmiYQBrFI9UN; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 16:43:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out02.mta.xmission.com (out02.mta.xmission.com [166.70.13.232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52C9E21F9C55; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 16:43:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx02.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.212]) by out02.mta.xmission.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <hilarie@purplestreak.com>) id 1Vgl2B-0004qk-M2; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 17:43:47 -0700
Received: from mta1.zcs.xmission.com ([166.70.13.65]) by mx02.mta.xmission.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <hilarie@purplestreak.com>) id 1Vgl29-0002Ub-Cf; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 17:43:47 -0700
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mta1.zcs.xmission.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 545991680BB; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 17:43:45 -0700 (MST)
Received: from mta1.zcs.xmission.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta1.zcs.xmission.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id OwqlJXhL3R0U; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 17:43:45 -0700 (MST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mta1.zcs.xmission.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36D8C1680C0; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 17:43:45 -0700 (MST)
Received: from mta1.zcs.xmission.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta1.zcs.xmission.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 7jQ8fOqEE1M4; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 17:43:45 -0700 (MST)
Received: from zms04.zcs.xmission.com (zms04.zcs.xmission.com [166.70.13.74]) by mta1.zcs.xmission.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C9581680BB; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 17:43:45 -0700 (MST)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 17:43:43 -0700 (MST)
From: Hilarie Orman <hilarie@purplestreak.com>
To: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <1679028552.3762717.1384389823659.JavaMail.zimbra@purplestreak.com>
In-Reply-To: <3A1F8736-5E28-4841-BA01-61A602087FB3@cisco.com>
References: <201311130743.rAD7hqQg002177@sylvester.rhmr.com> <528335D6.2010109@nomountain.net> <3A1F8736-5E28-4841-BA01-61A602087FB3@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [166.70.13.74]
X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.0.4_GA_5739 (zclient/8.0.4_GA_5739)
Thread-Topic: Security review of draft-shore-icmp-aup-06
Thread-Index: AQHO4EQ5HTlaGMkN0EGJGvvyQ8I+zpojNesAgAES24DMB09GHg==
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 166.70.13.65
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: hilarie@purplestreak.com
X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa01 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1
X-Spam-Combo: *;"Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
X-Spam-Relay-Country:
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:26:46 -0700)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mx02.mta.xmission.com)
Cc: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@nomountain.net>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "<draft-shore-icmp-aup@tools.ietf.org>" <draft-shore-icmp-aup@tools.ietf.org>, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] Security review of draft-shore-icmp-aup-06
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: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 00:43:56 -0000

That'll do.

Hilarie

----- Original Message -----
From: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <cpignata@cisco.com>
To: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@nomountain.net>et>, Hilarie Orman <hilarie@purplestreak.com>
Cc: <draft-shore-icmp-aup@tools.ietf.org> <draft-shore-icmp-aup@tools.ietf.org>rg>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>rg>, secdir@ietf.org
Sent: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 17:42:15 -0700 (MST)
Subject: Re: Security review of draft-shore-icmp-aup-06

Thanks, Hilarie,

How's this updated Security Considerations?

5.  Security considerations

   This document attempts to describe a high-level policy for adding
   ICMP types and codes.  While special attention must be paid to the
   security implications of any particular new ICMP type or code, this
   recommendation presents no new security considerations.

   From a security perspective, ICMP plays a part in the Photuris
   protocol.  But more generally, ICMP is not a secure protocol, and
   does not include features to be used to discover network security
   parameters or to report on network security anomalies in the
   forwarding plane.


Thanks,

-- Carlos.

On Nov 13, 2013, at 3:18 AM, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@nomountain.net> wrote:

> On 11/12/13 10:43 PM, Hilarie Orman wrote:
>> While there are ostensibly no new security considerations, it is
>> worthwhile noting that ICMP plays a part in the Photuris protocol and
>> was also used in SKIP (though that usage is deprecated).  In general,
>> I have some concern about using ICMP to discover network security
>> parameters or to report on network security anomalies in the
>> forwarding plane.
> 
> I hadn't been aware of its use in Photuris.  We'll get some
> text in there mentioning that, as well as some discussion of
> the problems you've mentioned with regard to reporting of
> security parameters/anomalies.  And now that you mention it
> that's actually a more general security problem.
> 
> Melinda
> 
> 
> -- 
> Melinda Shore
> No Mountain Software
> melinda.shore@nomountain.net
> 
> "Software longa, hardware brevis."