IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension Headers - Security as Functionality

Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Mon, 27 July 2020 15:25 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C19E53A1A4A; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 08:25:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.319
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.319 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.com
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 UhjNbWtSr57z; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 08:25:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server217-4.web-hosting.com (server217-4.web-hosting.com [198.54.116.98]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14C813A1721; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 08:24:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Mime-Version: Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=bfrC65OnSto5vkMwlGnlUa23okq3RRwutzbB6c9H5uA=; b=ZBNc3VOtGgMpfLhj9ajJm0GPD NnF9wStvpw4vBVVYrABy1/UdOUIK4E9/g8iINBC3+qEz9jmwTdpJyWn8pVxhznS7V2KUVXVwilw/Q QCMTu8L2aCvlYzVnwAqQdcpO3rMZ6FAyXsaUQIiHsJ5Q6gmqSp7pgKbX/YsVHfXXTAwagMoyFvCOL F7au8Ab4n3/Fdt/UI49z5VlbQGZUCHOp8Ar1G61Aaa267rmXfSwXQDgYOIxilQWdEG5fq9cWJE4s3 fULA+/gTpd/OwMrC5DNGvB4d+QmPLazfOkwIX/TgrbKlagT5L2xNaaElF1qjGlGwQgE/xLywgIql0 1rgexYqsw==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:59099 helo=[192.168.1.14]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1k04zX-004KT9-UG; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 11:24:44 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
From: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S34ZM=8PPz60hgv-yXrekxkzDBNap2J73yZO+-M=h73FWg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 08:24:39 -0700
Cc: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, "draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops@ietf.org" <draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CA14BE60-07A2-4521-8F35-F619FE917B5D@strayalpha.com>
References: <ee0bbb4d1f844ee8aef70dff0986685f@huawei.com> <CALx6S34ZM=8PPz60hgv-yXrekxkzDBNap2J73yZO+-M=h73FWg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/cAMFvtpwTK8jk1cg9j7U_DRZ0ig>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension Headers - Security as Functionality
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 15:25:28 -0000


> On Jul 27, 2020, at 7:36 AM, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 1:57 AM Vasilenko Eduard
> <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Fernando,
>> Security is sometimes functionality, not vulnerability or attack vector. The good example is Firewall. Firewall needs to parse all headers to be useful.
>> Hence, I believe it is in the logic of this draft to have section 5.1.5: one additional "use case" when parsing of ALL headers are mandatory. FW, IDPS
> 
> Eduard,
> 
> I would love to see the firewall device that is capable of processing
> ALL protocol headers in the IETF protocol suite! Reality is that
> firewalls can only process what they are programmed to process ….

A firewall NEEDS to balance protection with functionality.

I.e., a trivial firewall drops all packets. That’s 100% protection but 0% utility.

Dropping unknown headers protects against unknown attacks, but is not needed to protect against known ones.

I wonder whether most firewalls would provide sufficiently similar protection with increased utility by passing unknown options rather than blocking them.

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email