Re: [sidr] David M's point about the bgpsec protocol (embarrassing)
Sandra Murphy <sandy@tislabs.com> Fri, 13 February 2015 14:55 UTC
Return-Path: <sandy@tislabs.com>
X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6F0B1A870A for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 06:55:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 7D1a5Ezp5_06 for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 06:55:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from walnut.tislabs.com (walnut.tislabs.com [192.94.214.200]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 961351A8702 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 06:55:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nova.tislabs.com (unknown [10.66.1.77]) by walnut.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E540128B0017 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 09:55:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by nova.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA6981F8035; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 09:55:34 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5E01CFEA-4DA7-4ABC-ADD3-A6869D012BF5"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Sandra Murphy <sandy@tislabs.com>
In-Reply-To: <C28E78CF-4428-4EE6-B494-5123243F51B4@tislabs.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 09:55:41 -0500
Message-Id: <4793C46A-0B6B-45D2-ACB8-638E5971F47D@tislabs.com>
References: <4C184296-F426-40EF-9DB6-3AE87C42B516@tislabs.com> <82de0e0b8d59df99675cf4eb22996d08@mail.mandelberg.org> <87iof9r8wg.fsf@rebma.mikesoffice.com> <54DA7C98.4040604@mandelberg.org> <C28E78CF-4428-4EE6-B494-5123243F51B4@tislabs.com>
To: "sidr@ietf.org list" <sidr@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidr/g4mVV4asarpODW3YhOod2AtYZas>
Cc: Sandra Murphy <sandy@tislabs.com>
Subject: Re: [sidr] David M's point about the bgpsec protocol (embarrassing)
X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing <sidr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/>
List-Post: <mailto:sidr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 14:55:37 -0000
Sorry for cc-ing the list on this message and the belaboring and critical tone. I intended it as a private message, not a message to the whole wg. I hope others are looking at the issue. I haven't seen anyone reply to David. (Other than my oops-replied-to-all reply, of course. I wear the dunce cap this week.) --Sandy On Feb 12, 2015, at 5:40 PM, Sandra Murphy <sandy@tislabs.com> wrote: > I think David is right. > > This is embarrassing. I was looking at the syntax for the protocol in response to David's previous message, realizing that there's no text about what the NLRI length and NLRI prefix fields' syntax should be, looking right at those fields, thinking only that we needed to copy the text from 4271/4760, and did not spot this. > > This is embarrassing for the whole wg for not spotting the syntax laxness. And embarrassing to all the security folk. There's a standard problem in security protocols about not signing any old group of bits you are given because the signed bits might be used in some other context. So this should have been spotted much earlier. > > I keep hoping if I look at it closely there's a reason why this is not a problem. Surely SteveK/MattL/SteveB/RussH/etc if the problem were this obvious? > > Have you two looked at this? > > --Sandy > > On Feb 10, 2015, at 4:48 PM, David Mandelberg <david@mandelberg.org> wrote: > >> All, while coming up with the example below, I realized another issue. >> The structure in 4.1 doesn't include an Address Family Identifier. >> Unless I missed something, this means that a signature for 1.2.0.0/16 >> would be exactly the same as a signature for 102::/16. This would be a >> much more practical attack than the one I originally though of. >> > > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > sidr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
- Re: [sidr] wglc for draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protoc… David Mandelberg
- [sidr] wglc for draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-11 Sandra Murphy
- Re: [sidr] wglc for draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protoc… George, Wes
- Re: [sidr] wglc for draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protoc… Sriram, Kotikalapudi
- Re: [sidr] wglc for draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protoc… David Mandelberg
- Re: [sidr] wglc for draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protoc… Michael Baer
- Re: [sidr] wglc for draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protoc… David Mandelberg
- Re: [sidr] wglc for draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protoc… Michael Baer
- [sidr] David M's point about the bgpsec protocol … Sandra Murphy
- Re: [sidr] David M's point about the bgpsec proto… Randy Bush
- Re: [sidr] David M's point about the bgpsec proto… Randy Bush
- Re: [sidr] David M's point about the bgpsec proto… Sandra Murphy
- Re: [sidr] wglc for draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protoc… Keyur Patel (keyupate)
- Re: [sidr] wglc for draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protoc… Montgomery, Douglas
- Re: [sidr] wglc for draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protoc… Randy Bush
- Re: [sidr] wglc for draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protoc… Sriram, Kotikalapudi
- Re: [sidr] wglc for draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protoc… David Mandelberg
- Re: [sidr] wglc for draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protoc… Matthew Lepinski
- Re: [sidr] wglc for draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protoc… Michael Baer
- Re: [sidr] wglc for draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protoc… Sriram, Kotikalapudi
- [sidr] Levels of BGPsec/RPKI validation, was: Re:… Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: [sidr] [Idr] Levels of BGPsec/RPKI validation… Roque Gagliano (rogaglia)
- Re: [sidr] [Idr] Levels of BGPsec/RPKI validation… Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: [sidr] [Idr] Levels of BGPsec/RPKI validation… David Mandelberg
- Re: [sidr] [Idr] Levels of BGPsec/RPKI validation… Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: [sidr] [Idr] Levels of BGPsec/RPKI validation… Sandra Murphy
- Re: [sidr] [Idr] Levels of BGPsec/RPKI validation… Roque Gagliano (rogaglia)
- Re: [sidr] [Idr] Levels of BGPsec/RPKI validation… Randy Bush
- Re: [sidr] Levels of BGPsec/RPKI validation, was:… Geoff Huston
- Re: [sidr] [Idr] Levels of BGPsec/RPKI validation… Sriram, Kotikalapudi
- Re: [sidr] [Idr] Levels of BGPsec/RPKI validation… Randy Bush
- Re: [sidr] [Idr] Levels of BGPsec/RPKI validation… Jared Mauch
- Re: [sidr] [Idr] Levels of BGPsec/RPKI validation… Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: [sidr] [Idr] Levels of BGPsec/RPKI validation… Sriram, Kotikalapudi
- Re: [sidr] [Idr] Levels of BGPsec/RPKI validation… Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: [sidr] [Idr] Levels of BGPsec/RPKI validation… Randy Bush
- Re: [sidr] [Idr] Levels of BGPsec/RPKI validation… Tim Bruijnzeels
- Re: [sidr] Levels of BGPsec/RPKI validation, was:… Matthew Lepinski
- Re: [sidr] Levels of BGPsec/RPKI validation, was:… Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: [sidr] Levels of BGPsec/RPKI validation, was:… Matthew Lepinski
- Re: [sidr] Levels of BGPsec/RPKI validation, was:… Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: [sidr] Levels of BGPsec/RPKI validation, was:… Sriram, Kotikalapudi
- Re: [sidr] Levels of BGPsec/RPKI validation, was:… Stephen Kent
- Re: [sidr] Levels of BGPsec/RPKI validation, was:… Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: [sidr] Levels of BGPsec/RPKI validation, was:… Stephen Kent
- Re: [sidr] Levels of BGPsec/RPKI validation, was:… Sriram, Kotikalapudi