Re: [v6ops] [ipv6-wg] Extension Headers / Impact on Security Devices

Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> Wed, 17 June 2015 17:48 UTC

Return-Path: <brian@innovationslab.net>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52FA41B2C6E for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 10:48:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 fG5EbqIUTB0P for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 10:48:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F060D1B2C73 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 10:48:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach-high.fuaim.com [206.197.161.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1DDA8813C for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 10:48:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from brians-mbp.jhuapl.edu (swifi-nat.jhuapl.edu [128.244.87.133]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AB2D1368268 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 10:48:20 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5581B2DF.8040207@innovationslab.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 13:48:15 -0400
From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: v6ops@ietf.org
References: <20150515105406.GA3028@ernw.de> <87siav2m6p.fsf@stepladder-it.com> <F1D4404E5E6C614EB9D3083F4D15A7E7C4A92C@hex02> <20150517191841.GA26929@ernw.de> <C07DF957-9A2D-4962-ABAA-DE61F5C5D533@cisco.com> <20150617081424.GA15514@ernw.de> <505DC30B-8ED1-4C75-A13B-FAC9D4E5348C@cisco.com> <20150617174315.GA17641@ernw.de>
In-Reply-To: <20150617174315.GA17641@ernw.de>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="pa5t5dGaGu6m7pXA6PbRFTeHH8S7K94rH"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/_JYL6GnHYALIujLVjzhVHxaysEA>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] [ipv6-wg] Extension Headers / Impact on Security Devices
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 17:48:23 -0000


On 6/17/15 1:43 PM, Enno Rey wrote:

> 
> Let's put it slightly different: the intrusion detector is supposed
> to detect/block certain application layer attacks. Which it does as
> long as those come in/pass by without extension

If the device is trying to inspect application-layer data, it might as
well act like the destination and re-assemble the fragments. Yes, this
is costly processing, but it mitigates this bypass mechanism.

Regards,
Brian