Re: [v6ops] [OPSEC] [EXTERNAL] Re: [IPv6] Why folks are blocking IPv6 extension headers? (Episode 1000 and counting) (Linux DoS)
Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com> Thu, 25 May 2023 05:59 UTC
Return-Path: <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.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 344A6C151981; Wed, 24 May 2023 22:59:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.195
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.195 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XV8Nj5eRQNMp; Wed, 24 May 2023 22:59:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 868D2C15152E; Wed, 24 May 2023 22:59:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mscpeml100001.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.207]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4QRcky4dF9z67gWk; Thu, 25 May 2023 13:56:58 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mscpeml500001.china.huawei.com (7.188.26.142) by mscpeml100001.china.huawei.com (7.188.26.227) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.23; Thu, 25 May 2023 08:58:57 +0300
Received: from mscpeml500001.china.huawei.com ([7.188.26.142]) by mscpeml500001.china.huawei.com ([7.188.26.142]) with mapi id 15.01.2507.023; Thu, 25 May 2023 08:58:57 +0300
From: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>
To: Arnaud Taddei <arnaud.taddei=40broadcom.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
CC: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, "Manfredi (US), Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>, "opsec@ietf.org" <opsec@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [OPSEC] [EXTERNAL] Re: [IPv6] [v6ops] Why folks are blocking IPv6 extension headers? (Episode 1000 and counting) (Linux DoS)
Thread-Index: AQHZjqVw9mpHkTTjSkKniMe/w8Wu7q9qP06AgAAzw6D//9X1AIAAM4ig
Date: Thu, 25 May 2023 05:58:57 +0000
Message-ID: <be71e1ef87ac4a27b776104bc43f7efc@huawei.com>
References: <11087a11-476c-5fb8-2ede-e1b3b6e95e48@si6networks.com> <CALx6S343f_FPXVxuZuXB4j=nY-SuTEYrnxb3O5OQ3fv5uPwT8g@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau1pTVr6ak9rc9x7irg+aLhq0N8_WOyySqx5Syt74HMX=g@mail.gmail.com> <a087b963-1e12-66bf-b93e-5190ce09914b@si6networks.com> <CALx6S349nNA8L5+_1hrbWayqp8GfTYypWy_SP57c_Xxams=csg@mail.gmail.com> <51a066b3-4b4c-d573-ffbe-d6b44a4f193f@gont.com.ar> <a411a1b0-c521-c456-3d44-d99a1cc0975b@gmail.com> <CWXP265MB5153E4687BE45480DBC5A531C2439@CWXP265MB5153.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <27d28224-0cb0-eec2-8d54-f0d175596c85@gmail.com> <f5758380-9967-b67b-744d-dc36b7b599ab@si6networks.com> <72784f8e65f34bcc9f5652c0a553c70c@boeing.com> <1cf9c93b-32db-6d30-9ea9-951172587a9a@si6networks.com> <588C62B7-0FA1-4C3F-8EE2-1CB58A667407@broadcom.com> <f42e5db6d0ad4ed284c7ae9c4d6abecb@huawei.com> <5057DFBA-3593-4939-8C92-7B6C58DDFA04@broadcom.com>
In-Reply-To: <5057DFBA-3593-4939-8C92-7B6C58DDFA04@broadcom.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.81.197.228]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_be71e1ef87ac4a27b776104bc43f7efchuaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/z5Lx40BsG7dDMTV9z5NlL2qvREo>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] [OPSEC] [EXTERNAL] Re: [IPv6] Why folks are blocking IPv6 extension headers? (Episode 1000 and counting) (Linux DoS)
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Thu, 25 May 2023 05:59:03 -0000
Hi Arnaud, It is a good point that Enterprises have much more serious attention to security. But Telco is not so much paranoid about security. The last initiative in this WG is about “to push Telco to tolerate all EHs”. The context of this discussion is more about Telco. > The additional cost you can find ways to write them off In the majority of cases “No”. Because tests could not be free, support could not be free either. Performance penalty may be close to Zero (only a small loss of bandwidth) – depending on the EH type (maybe a 2x drop of performance because of recirculation). > the ‘additional cost’ and the ’security risk’ are not symmetric at all. Yes, it is an apple and orange comparison. But both exist, and both may be discussed. Ed/ From: Arnaud Taddei [mailto:arnaud.taddei=40broadcom.com@dmarc.ietf.org] Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2023 8:47 AM To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com> Cc: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>; Manfredi (US), Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>; IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>; 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>; opsec@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSEC] [EXTERNAL] Re: [IPv6] [v6ops] Why folks are blocking IPv6 extension headers? (Episode 1000 and counting) (Linux DoS) +1 just that the ‘additional cost’ and the ’security risk’ are not symmetric at all. The additional cost you can find ways to write them off The security risk is much more damaging because it is a compliancy risk (think DORA for the FSI in EU), a reputation risk that is now captured by credit rating agencies, a revenue risk, a stock rating agencies (your stock will drop), insurance ratings, etc. and 1) it is getting substantial and 2) it is even existential with a few examples that some organizations literally lost e.g. an MNO of €1.3B and 30 years of existence (only survived by 1 backup link), etc On 25 May 2023, at 07:21, Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:vasilenko.eduard=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: IMHO: Fernando comes here with a good example (EH DoS). Security is a good reason to block EHs. But for business, every feature should be tested, supported, and somebody should pay an additional performance penalty. I am not sure which reason is bigger: additional cost or security risk. It depends on the organization type. Ed/ -----Original Message----- From: OPSEC [mailto:opsec-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Arnaud Taddei Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2023 8:12 AM To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com<mailto:fgont@si6networks.com>> Cc: Manfredi (US), Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com<mailto:albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>>; IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org<mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>>; 6man <ipv6@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>>; opsec@ietf.org<mailto:opsec@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [OPSEC] [EXTERNAL] Re: [IPv6] [v6ops] Why folks are blocking IPv6 extension headers? (Episode 1000 and counting) (Linux DoS) Would like to support Fernando again, and not just because I have a Sony TV too. Cybersecurity is in such a bad state that I can only plea for a sense of realism and pragmatism vs dogmatism to get real solutions at hand to the defenders practitioners If not I will ask people here to consider spending a week in a Security Operation Center when there is a Ransomware breaking up Fernando’s paper intentions will be appreciated by the defenders On 25 May 2023, at 03:07, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com<mailto:fgont@si6networks.com>> wrote: On 25/5/23 02:01, Manfredi (US), Albert E wrote: -----Original Message----- From: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Fernando Gont Given the amount of things that get connected to the Net (smart bulbs, refrigerators, etc.) -- and that will super-likely never receive security updates, you may have to **rely on your own network**. For instance, I wouldn't have my smart TV "defend itself". Agreed, "on your own network." >From the viewpoint of a household, whatever network defense has to be behind that household's router, for it to be credible, and preferably right in each host. Yeah, some IoT devices may not be updated regularly. So, that's why people block them at the edge. (just the messenger) The ISP has to worry about protecting that ISP's own network. That's e.g. where RFC9098 comes in, with notes on why they are dropped in places other than the edge network. Households have to be responsible for protecting their household's network. (And connected TVs do get regular software updates, as a matter of fact.) I guess it all depends on the TV? e.g., I for one I'm not planning to throw it out just because Sony decided to quit pushing updates (which were never automatic for my set). Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com<mailto:fgont@si6networks.com> PGP Fingerprint: F242 FF0E A804 AF81 EB10 2F07 7CA1 321D 663B B494 _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list OPSEC@ietf.org<mailto:OPSEC@ietf.org> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops&source=gmail-imap&ust=1685596906000000&usg=AOvVaw1SaRszq_Trn0SZdoxCGfAf ec&source=gmail-imap&ust=1685581681000000&usg=AOvVaw2CR1KLp2V-YO9ZOvhw rWtn -- This electronic communication and the information and any files transmitted with it, or attached to it, are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, legally privileged, protected by privacy laws, or otherwise restricted from disclosure to anyone else. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, copying, distributing, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, please return the e-mail to the sender, delete it from your computer, and destroy any printed copy of it. This electronic communication and the information and any files transmitted with it, or attached to it, are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, legally privileged, protected by privacy laws, or otherwise restricted from disclosure to anyone else. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, copying, distributing, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, please return the e-mail to the sender, delete it from your computer, and destroy any printed copy of it.
- [v6ops] Why folks are blocking IPv6 extension hea… Fernando Gont
- Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] Why folks are blocking IPv6 ex… Tom Herbert
- Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] Why folks are blocking IPv6 ex… Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] Why folks are blocking IPv6 ex… David Farmer
- Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] Why folks are blocking IPv6 ex… nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com
- Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] Why folks are blocking IPv6 ex… Jen Linkova
- Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] Why folks are blocking IPv6 ex… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] Why folks are blocking IPv6 ex… Fernando Gont
- Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] Why folks are blocking IPv6 ex… Fernando Gont
- Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] Why folks are blocking IPv6 ex… Tom Herbert
- Re: [v6ops] [OPSEC] [IPv6] Why folks are blocking… Andrew Campling
- Re: [v6ops] [OPSEC] [IPv6] Why folks are blocking… Andrew Campling
- Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] Why folks are blocking IPv6 ex… Tom Herbert
- Re: [v6ops] [OPSEC] [IPv6] Why folks are blocking… Tom Herbert
- Re: [v6ops] [OPSEC] [IPv6] Why folks are blocking… Nick Buraglio
- Re: [v6ops] [OPSEC] [IPv6] Why folks are blocking… nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com
- Re: [v6ops] [OPSEC] [IPv6] Why folks are blocking… Dale W. Carder
- Re: [v6ops] [OPSEC] [IPv6] Why folks are blocking… Nick Buraglio
- Re: [v6ops] [OPSEC] [IPv6] Why folks are blocking… Nick Buraglio
- Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] [OPSEC] Why folks are blocking… Ackermann, Michael
- Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] [OPSEC] Why folks are blocking… Xipengxiao
- Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] [OPSEC] Why folks are blocking… Michael McBride
- Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] [OPSEC] Why folks are blocking… Ackermann, Michael
- Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] Why folks are blocking IPv6 ex… Fernando Gont
- Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] Why folks are blocking IPv6 ex… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] Why folks are blocking IPv6 ex… Ole Troan
- Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] Why folks are blocking IPv6 ex… Haisheng Yu
- Re: [v6ops] [OPSEC] [IPv6] Why folks are blocking… Andrew Campling
- Re: [v6ops] [OPSEC] [IPv6] Why folks are blocking… Bob Natale
- Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] [OPSEC] Why folks are blocking… Tom Herbert
- Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] [OPSEC] Why folks are blocking… Ole Troan
- Re: [v6ops] [OPSEC] [IPv6] Why folks are blocking… nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com
- Re: [v6ops] [EXT] Re: [OPSEC] [IPv6] Why folks ar… Bob Natale
- Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] Why folks are blocking IPv6 ex… David Farmer
- Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] [OPSEC] Why folks are blocking… nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com
- Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] [OPSEC] Why folks are blocking… Tom Herbert
- Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] Why folks are blocking IPv6 ex… Michael Richardson
- Re: [v6ops] [OPSEC] [IPv6] Why folks are blocking… Ole Trøan
- Re: [v6ops] [OPSEC] [IPv6] Why folks are blocking… nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com
- Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] Why folks are blocking IPv6 ex… David Farmer
- Re: [v6ops] [OPSEC] [IPv6] Why folks are blocking… Ole Troan
- Re: [v6ops] [OPSEC] [IPv6] Why folks are blocking… Tom Herbert
- Re: [v6ops] [OPSEC] [IPv6] Why folks are blocking… nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com
- Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] Why folks are blocking IPv6 ex… Fernando Gont
- Re: [v6ops] [OPSEC] [IPv6] Why folks are blocking… Tom Herbert
- Re: [v6ops] [OPSEC] [IPv6] Why folks are blocking… Ole Troan
- Re: [v6ops] [OPSEC] [IPv6] Why folks are blocking… nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com
- Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] [OPSEC] Why folks are blocking… Fernando Gont
- Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] Why folks are blocking IPv6 ex… Fernando Gont
- Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] [OPSEC] Why folks are blocking… Tom Herbert
- Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] Why folks are blocking IPv6 ex… Tom Herbert
- Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] Why folks are blocking IPv6 ex… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] Why folks are blocking IPv6 ex… Michael Richardson
- Re: [v6ops] [OPSEC] [IPv6] Why folks are blocking… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] [OPSEC] [IPv6] Why folks are blocking… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] Why folks are blocking IPv6 ex… hsyu
- Re: [v6ops] [OPSEC] [IPv6] Why folks are blocking… Fernando Gont
- Re: [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: [IPv6] [OPSEC] Why fol… Manfredi (US), Albert E
- Re: [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: [IPv6] [OPSEC] Why fol… Fernando Gont
- Re: [v6ops] [OPSEC] [EXTERNAL] Re: [IPv6] Why fol… Arnaud Taddei
- Re: [v6ops] [OPSEC] [EXTERNAL] Re: [IPv6] Why fol… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [v6ops] [OPSEC] [EXTERNAL] Re: [IPv6] Why fol… Arnaud Taddei
- Re: [v6ops] [OPSEC] [EXTERNAL] Re: [IPv6] Why fol… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [v6ops] [OPSEC] [EXTERNAL] Re: [IPv6] Why fol… Arnaud Taddei
- Re: [v6ops] [OPSEC] [EXTERNAL] Re: [IPv6] Why fol… nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com
- Re: [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: [IPv6] [OPSEC] Why fol… Tom Herbert
- Re: [v6ops] [OPSEC] [EXTERNAL] Re: [IPv6] Why fol… Tom Herbert
- Re: [v6ops] [OPSEC] [EXTERNAL] Re: [IPv6] Why fol… nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com
- Re: [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: [IPv6] [OPSEC] Why fol… Manfredi (US), Albert E
- Re: [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: [IPv6] [OPSEC] Why fol… Tom Herbert
- Re: [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: [IPv6] [OPSEC] Why fol… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: [IPv6] [OPSEC] Why fol… Manfredi (US), Albert E
- Re: [v6ops] [OPSEC] [EXTERNAL] Re: [IPv6] Why fol… Bob Natale
- Re: [v6ops] [OPSEC] [IPv6] Why folks are blocking… Haisheng Yu
- Re: [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: [IPv6] [OPSEC] Why fol… Warren Kumari
- Re: [v6ops] [OPSEC] [EXTERNAL] Re: [IPv6] Why fol… Ole Troan
- Re: [v6ops] [OPSEC] [EXTERNAL] Re: [IPv6] Why fol… Warren Kumari
- Re: [v6ops] [OPSEC] [EXTERNAL] Re: [IPv6] Why fol… Andrew Campling
- Re: [v6ops] [OPSEC] [EXTERNAL] Re: [IPv6] Why fol… Fernando Gont
- Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] [EXTERNAL] Re: [OPSEC] Why fol… Fernando Gont
- Re: [v6ops] [OPSEC] [IPv6] Why folks are blocking… Fernando Gont
- Re: [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: [IPv6] [OPSEC] Why fol… Fernando Gont
- Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] [EXTERNAL] Re: [OPSEC] Why fol… Tom Herbert
- Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] [OPSEC] Why folks are blocking… Tom Herbert
- Re: [v6ops] [OPSEC] [EXTERNAL] Re: [IPv6] Why fol… Tom Herbert
- Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] [OPSEC] Why folks are blocking… Fernando Gont
- Re: [v6ops] [OPSEC] [EXTERNAL] Re: [IPv6] Why fol… Clark Gaylord
- Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] [OPSEC] Why folks are blocking… Tom Herbert
- Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] [OPSEC] Why folks are blocking… Fernando Gont
- Re: [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: [IPv6] [OPSEC] Why fol… Manfredi (US), Albert E
- Re: [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: [IPv6] [OPSEC] Why fol… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] [OPSEC] [EXTERNAL] Re: [IPv6] Why fol… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: [IPv6] [OPSEC] Why fol… Tom Herbert
- Re: [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: [IPv6] [OPSEC] Why fol… Manfredi (US), Albert E
- Re: [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: [IPv6] [OPSEC] Why fol… Andrew Alston
- Re: [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: [IPv6] [OPSEC] Why fol… Tom Herbert
- Re: [v6ops] [OPSEC] [EXTERNAL] Re: [IPv6] Why fol… Andrew Campling
- Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] [OPSEC] [EXTERNAL] Re: Why fol… Tom Herbert
- Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] [EXTERNAL] Re: [OPSEC] Why fol… Mike Simpson
- Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] [OPSEC] [EXTERNAL] Re: Why fol… Haisheng Yu
- Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] [OPSEC] [EXTERNAL] Re: Why fol… Nick Hilliard
- Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] [OPSEC] [EXTERNAL] Re: Why fol… Fernando Gont
- Re: [v6ops] [OPSEC] [IPv6] [EXTERNAL] Re: Why fol… Bob Natale