Some additional comments on

Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar> Mon, 13 September 2010 02:36 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C8173A68C5 for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Sep 2010 19:36:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.228
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.228 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.372, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_INVITATION=-2, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7g0VrfHksQNh for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Sep 2010 19:35:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 578663A68A8 for <v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Sep 2010 19:34:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>) id 1Ouyon-000ODe-6p for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 02:30:53 +0000
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 02:30:53 +0000
Message-Id: <E1Ouyon-000ODe-6p@psg.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: draft-ietf-v6ops-tunnel-security-concerns@tools.ietf.org
CC: "v6ops@ops.ietf.org" <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
Subject: Some additional comments on

draft-ietf-v6ops-tunnel-security-concerns
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
OpenPGP: id=D076FFF1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <v6ops.ops.ietf.org>

Folks,

Meta comment:
Being an ops I-D/RFC, I would expect some concrete advice on, e.g., how
to filter well-known tunneling mechanisms. IMO, one should be able to
answer the questions "How should I filter Teredo?", "How should I filter
6to4?", and others (without this being an invitation to do so).


Another specific comments:

> 6.  Additional Security Concerns
> 
> 6.1.  Attacks Facilitated By Changing Tunnel Server Setting
> 
> 6.1.1.  Problem

The I-D seems to assume that the tunnel endpoint *is* configured by
resolving a domainname, and that there's no workaround.

Firstly, while e.g. Windows does configure e.g. the Teredo server and
the 6to4 relay by resolving domain-names, this need not be the case.
Secondly, one could override such setting and eliminate *this* attack
vector by configuring a hardcoded IP address (e.g., the 6to4 anycast
address)

Thanks!

Kind regards,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@acm.org
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1