From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 10 13:59:01 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA14560 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 13:59:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19afgh-0007sf-CJ for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 13:58:35 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6AHwZJe030287 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 13:58:35 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19afgh-0007sQ-8B for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 13:58:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA14542 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 13:58:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19afge-0005ir-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 13:58:33 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19afge-0005in-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 13:58:32 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19afg8-0007nT-PG; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 13:58:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19affl-0007my-Gx for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 13:57:37 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA14510 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 13:57:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19affi-0005iC-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 13:57:34 -0400 Received: from mesa.bbnplanet.com ([171.78.172.21]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19affh-0005hd-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 13:57:34 -0400 Received: from localhost (ttauber@localhost) by mesa.bbnplanet.com (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h6AHv2P02062 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 13:57:02 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: mesa.bbnplanet.com: ttauber owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 13:57:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Tony Tauber X-X-Sender: ttauber@mesa.bbnplanet.com To: rpsec@ietf.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [RPSEC] RPSEC meeting cancelled in Vienna Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Greetings all, Due to the fact that there's been no appreciable movement lately on either the Threats or Requirements documents which are our charter deliverables, and there have been no requests or suggestions for presentations or discussions in Vienna, the WG won't bother to meet there. If there are things that people would like to discuss; please advise ASAP (As Soon As Possible). Thanks, Tony _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 11 13:53:51 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA08158 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:53:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b25E-0007AC-9y for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:53:24 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6BHrOwN027535 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:53:24 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b25D-0007A2-ST for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:53:23 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA08130 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:53:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b256-00006S-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:53:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b255-00006P-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:53:15 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b24r-00077D-FC; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:53:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b23s-0006wR-Nl for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:52:00 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA08072 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:51:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b23p-00004e-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:51:57 -0400 Received: from kanfw1.ottawa.alcatel.ca ([192.75.23.69] helo=kanmx1.ca.alcatel.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b23o-00004S-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:51:56 -0400 Received: (qmail 15118 invoked from network); 11 Jul 2003 18:02:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO CAOTTM00147) (138.120.62.35) by kanmx1.ca.alcatel.com with SMTP; 11 Jul 2003 18:02:12 -0000 Message-ID: <021001c347d5$0b58c900$233e788a@CAOTTM00147> From: "Emanuele Jones" To: Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:51:19 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_020D_01C347B3.81776730" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 Subject: [RPSEC] OSPF vulnerabilities draft Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_020D_01C347B3.81776730 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Greetings, I would like to introduce a new Internet Draft: = draft-jones-OSPF-vuln-00.txt. This draft is now available at the IETF = website.=20 I believe that even though the group has already moved to the developing = of a generic threat paper (draft-ietf-rpsec-routing-threats-01.txt), = security of IGP has not been extensively covered and discussed as much = as EGP's security was with BGP, SoBGP and SBGP. Thus, this paper may be = a good occasion to initiate some work on that topic. This memo = systematically dissects every message and every aspect of OSPF searching = for vulnerabilities that could lead to insider, outsider or DoS attacks = against the control and the data plane. The paper is more than just a = literature survey about OSPF security; aside from discovering new = vulnerabilities that came directly from the test bed, the draft = highlights and describes a few "misconceptions" about OSPF's security = such as "fight back" and remote attacker prevention. The Internet Draft is available at: = http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jones-ospf-vuln-00.txt Regards, Emanuele Emanuele Jones=20 Alcatel Canada - R&I - Security group=20 600 March Road - Kanata, ON, Canada K2K 2E6=20 Phone: +1 613 784 5977 Fax: +1 613 784 8944=20 Email: emanuele.jones@alcatel.com=20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_020D_01C347B3.81776730 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Greetings,
 
I would like to = introduce a new=20 Internet Draft: draft-jones-OSPF-vuln-00.txt. This draft is now=20 available at the IETF website.
 
I believe that even = though the group=20 has already moved to the developing of  a generic threat paper=20 (draft-ietf-rpsec-routing-threats-01.txt), security of IGP has = not=20 been extensively covered and discussed as much as EGP's = security was=20 with BGP, SoBGP and SBGP. Thus, this = paper may be=20 a good occasion to initiate some work on that topic. This memo = systematically=20 dissects every message and every aspect of OSPF searching for = vulnerabilities=20 that could lead to insider, outsider or DoS attacks against the control = and the=20 data plane. The paper is more than just a literature survey about OSPF = security;=20 aside from discovering new vulnerabilities that came directly=20 from the test = bed, the draft highlights and=20 describes a few "misconceptions" about OSPF's security such as = "fight back"=20 and remote attacker prevention.
 
The Internet Draft is available at: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jones-ospf-vuln-00.txt=

Regards,
 
Emanuele
 
Emanuele Jones =
Alcatel Canada -=20 R&I - Security group
600 March Road - Kanata, ON, Canada K2K 2E6 =
Phone: +1 613 784 5977 Fax: +1 613 784 8944
Email: emanuele.jones@alcatel.com=20
 
------=_NextPart_000_020D_01C347B3.81776730-- _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 13 21:50:38 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA10982 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:50:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bsTj-0004HK-PZ for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:50:11 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6E1oBDt016440 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:50:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bsTj-0004H5-9c for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:50:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA10970 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:50:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bsTg-0000YJ-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:50:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bsTf-0000YF-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:50:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bsTZ-0004Fy-1d; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:50:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bsT7-0004Fd-0m for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:49:33 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA10965 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:49:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bsT4-0000YA-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:49:30 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bsT3-0000Y4-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:49:29 -0400 Received: from cisco.com (64.102.124.12) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Jul 2003 18:52:45 -0700 Received: from cisco.com (uzura.cisco.com [64.102.17.77]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h6E1mvMK003218 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:48:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from russpc.nc.rr.com (rtp-vpn2-158.cisco.com [10.82.240.158]) by cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA03592 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:48:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:48:56 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) From: Russ White Reply-To: Russ White To: rpsec@ietf.org Message-ID: X-X-Sender: ruwhite@uzura.cisco.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [RPSEC] Threats Draft Issue 1: Neighbors & Peers? Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , I think the general concensus was to use neighbors, rather than peers, in all of our working group docs to describe routers which have formed a relationship? Is this correct? If so, could the authors of the threats draft take note of this as something that needs to be fixed up in the next version? Thanks! Russ __________________________________ riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 13 21:54:29 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA11059 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:54:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bsXS-0004PF-OM for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:54:02 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6E1s2fa016931 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:54:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bsXS-0004P0-KO for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:54:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA11048 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:53:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bsXP-0000ZG-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:53:59 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bsXP-0000ZD-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:53:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bsXR-0004Nu-CP; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:54:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bsWy-0004NZ-LD for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:53:32 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA11042 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:53:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bsWv-0000Z4-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:53:29 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-2-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.71] helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bsWv-0000Z1-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:53:29 -0400 Received: from cisco.com (64.102.124.12) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Jul 2003 18:51:53 -0700 Received: from cisco.com (uzura.cisco.com [64.102.17.77]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h6E1qvMK003818 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:52:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from russpc.nc.rr.com (rtp-vpn2-158.cisco.com [10.82.240.158]) by cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA03747 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:52:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:52:56 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) From: Russ White Reply-To: Russ White To: rpsec@ietf.org Message-ID: X-X-Sender: ruwhite@uzura.cisco.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [RPSEC] Threats Draft Issue 2: Section 4.1 Deliberate Exposure Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , I don't seem to recall a concensus being reached on the exposure of routing information within the context of the threats draft--the last email I saw on the topic was from Tony: -- I'm confused as well. The sense I take from "deliberate" is that it's intentional. If information is intentionally revealed to parties who aren't authorized, it would seem to be a malicious act in itself, perhaps meant to deceive? Tony -- What's the current status of this item? Is there a concensus on whether or not the exposure of routing information is a threat to a routing system, or not? I would think it could be, but only in terms of exposing topology information to attackers outside the network, not insiders, since it would be almost impossible to prevent this information from being known to anyone within the network (with a network connection of any type). Thoughts? :-) Russ __________________________________ riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 13 21:59:31 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA11128 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:59:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bscL-0004Yd-0u for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:59:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6E1x5X0017513 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:59:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bscK-0004YO-Sy for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:59:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA11102 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:59:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bscH-0000aD-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:59:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bscH-0000aA-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:59:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bscH-0004XH-Hn; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:59:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bsbW-0004Wr-W6 for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:58:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA11097 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:58:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bsbU-0000Zy-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:58:12 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-2-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.71] helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bsbT-0000Zp-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:58:11 -0400 Received: from cisco.com (64.102.124.13) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Jul 2003 18:56:36 -0700 Received: from cisco.com (uzura.cisco.com [64.102.17.77]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h6E1veAi001953 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:57:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from russpc.nc.rr.com (rtp-vpn2-158.cisco.com [10.82.240.158]) by cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA03982 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:57:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:57:39 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) From: Russ White Reply-To: Russ White To: Routing Protocols Security Working Group Message-ID: X-X-Sender: ruwhite@uzura.cisco.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [RPSEC] Threats Draft Issue 3: Section 4.5 Underclaiming Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Did we come to some concensus on whether or not underclaiming is a legitimate threat? I know there was a lengthy discussion on this, but I don't recall any sort of final concensus around the question. :-) Russ __________________________________ riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 13 22:06:30 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11237 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:06:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bsj6-0004mt-1q for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:06:04 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6E264PI018375 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:06:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bsj5-0004mI-TL for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:06:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11221 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:05:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bsj2-0000cS-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:06:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bsj2-0000cP-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:06:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bsj3-0004l8-Qf; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:06:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bsiK-0004kn-5X for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:05:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11218 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:05:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bsiH-0000cK-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:05:13 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bsiG-0000cH-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:05:12 -0400 Received: from cisco.com (64.102.124.12) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Jul 2003 19:08:28 -0700 Received: from cisco.com (uzura.cisco.com [64.102.17.77]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h6E24eMK005964 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:04:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from russpc.nc.rr.com (rtp-vpn2-158.cisco.com [10.82.240.158]) by cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA04240 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:04:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:04:39 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) From: Russ White Reply-To: Russ White To: Routing Protocols Security Working Group Message-ID: X-X-Sender: ruwhite@uzura.cisco.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [RPSEC] Threats Draft Issue 4: Section 3.1 Threat Sources Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , We don't seem to have gotten through a concensus on the threat sources portion of the threats draft, specifically in the seperation of unauthorized and masquerading threat sources. So, what I seem to have from the thread is: Sandy: We shouldn't consider masquerading and unauthorized as different Russ: Define the ideas, but combine them throughout the draft as one problem Others? I'm not certain where we are on this topic. :-) Russ __________________________________ riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 13 22:11:30 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11341 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:11:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bsnv-0005BI-Pm for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:11:03 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6E2B3QB019910 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:11:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bsnv-0005B3-Lk for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:11:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11331 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:10:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bsns-0000eC-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:11:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bsns-0000e9-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:11:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bsnu-000593-AT; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:11:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bsnN-00058o-Pa for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:10:29 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11328 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:10:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bsnK-0000e6-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:10:26 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.70] helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bsnK-0000dq-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:10:26 -0400 Received: from cisco.com (uzura.cisco.com [64.102.17.77]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h6E29sMK006825 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:09:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from russpc.nc.rr.com (rtp-vpn2-158.cisco.com [10.82.240.158]) by cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA04567 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:09:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:09:53 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) From: Russ White Reply-To: Russ White To: Routing Protocols Security Working Group Message-ID: X-X-Sender: ruwhite@uzura.cisco.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [RPSEC] Threats Draft Issue 6: Section 4.7 Overload Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sandy expressed some reservations about this section, stating that overloading the control plane and overloading the data plane are two seperate topics, and that routing protocol design could do little to help in either of them. Is there any concensus on this within the working group? I think we need some more discussion, probably? :-) Russ __________________________________ riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 13 22:14:30 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11393 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:14:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bsqq-0005JN-KC for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:14:04 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6E2E41g020411 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:14:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bsqq-0005J8-G7 for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:14:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11384 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:14:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bsqn-0000f3-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:14:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bsqm-0000f0-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:14:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bsqn-0005H9-0n; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:14:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bsqh-0005Gy-R3 for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:13:57 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11381 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:13:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bsqe-0000et-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:13:52 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.70] helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bsqe-0000el-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:13:52 -0400 Received: from cisco.com (uzura.cisco.com [64.102.17.77]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h6E2DKMK007394 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:13:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from russpc.nc.rr.com (rtp-vpn2-158.cisco.com [10.82.240.158]) by cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA04784 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:13:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:13:18 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) From: Russ White Reply-To: Russ White To: Routing Protocols Security Working Group Message-ID: X-X-Sender: ruwhite@uzura.cisco.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [RPSEC] Threats Draft Issue 6: Consistent Use of Blackhole Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sandy brought up, some time back, that the term blackhole didn't appear to be used consistently throughout the threats draft. Does the WG feel this is true? What could be done to the draft to clean this up, and make it better? Russ __________________________________ riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 13 22:17:29 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11442 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:17:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bstj-0005SO-L5 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:17:03 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6E2H3i4020970 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:17:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bstj-0005S9-HH for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:17:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11425 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:16:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bstg-0000fl-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:17:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bstf-0000fi-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:16:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bsth-0005Q8-0p; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:17:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bst0-0005Pn-FO for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:16:18 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11417 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:16:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bssx-0000fY-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:16:15 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-2-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.71] helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bssw-0000fU-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:16:14 -0400 Received: from cisco.com (64.102.124.12) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Jul 2003 19:14:39 -0700 Received: from cisco.com (uzura.cisco.com [64.102.17.77]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h6E2FhMK007991 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:15:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from russpc.nc.rr.com (rtp-vpn2-158.cisco.com [10.82.240.158]) by cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA04840 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:15:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:15:42 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) From: Russ White Reply-To: Russ White To: Routing Protocols Security Working Group Message-ID: X-X-Sender: ruwhite@uzura.cisco.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [RPSEC] Threats Draft Issue 7: Ownership as a Term Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , IS the term "ownership" appropriate when discussing the advertisement of a route or prefix? It doesn't appear to be, although it is used that way within the draft, for instance section 4.5 and others. It appears that we are concerned about attacks where a router claims to have reachability to a given destination, not ownership of that destination, so the term is rather loose, and we should work around it. Thoughts? Russ __________________________________ riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 13 22:25:29 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11589 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:25:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bt1T-0005g8-QA for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:25:03 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6E2P3D1021822 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:25:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bt1T-0005ft-Kh for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:25:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11572 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:24:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bt1Q-0000iD-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:25:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bt1P-0000iA-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:24:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bt1R-0005dl-Dy; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:25:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bt0n-0005dF-R1 for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:24:21 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11564 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:24:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bt0k-0000i4-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:24:18 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.70] helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bt0j-0000hw-01 for rpsec@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:24:17 -0400 Received: from cisco.com (uzura.cisco.com [64.102.17.77]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h6E2NqMK008848 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:23:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from russpc.nc.rr.com (rtp-vpn2-158.cisco.com [10.82.240.158]) by cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA05210 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:23:51 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:23:51 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) From: Russ White Reply-To: Russ White To: Routing Protocols Security Working Group Message-ID: X-X-Sender: ruwhite@uzura.cisco.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [RPSEC] Other Issue With the Threats Draft... Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Y'all: I'd really like to get the threats draft moving again. I know I had sent out a good number of comments earlier, and I've just sent out a bunch again. I would really appreciate it if we could come to concensus on the technical issues before us in this draft, and move on to editorial polish issues, and move this out the door, so we can work on the requirements document, and then on more specific protocol work. Let's focus on the technical issues first, then lets get into polish and editorial--we want this draft to be readable by the entire community, rather than just a good technical document. Thoughts? :-) Russ __________________________________ riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 13 22:31:29 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11792 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:31:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bt7G-0005y0-WC for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:31:03 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6E2V2X9022930 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:31:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bt7G-0005xl-TF for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:31:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11758 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:30:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bt7D-0000kp-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:30:59 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bt7D-0000km-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:30:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bt7F-0005wd-6K; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:31:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bt6R-0005vq-EY for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:30:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11732 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:30:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bt6O-0000kQ-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:30:08 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.70] helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bt6N-0000kC-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:30:07 -0400 Received: from cisco.com (uzura.cisco.com [64.102.17.77]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h6E2TZAi006550 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:29:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from russpc.nc.rr.com (rtp-vpn2-158.cisco.com [10.82.240.158]) by cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA05384 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:29:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:29:34 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) From: Russ White Reply-To: Russ White To: Routing Protocols Security Working Group Message-ID: X-X-Sender: ruwhite@uzura.cisco.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [RPSEC] Comments on the Abstract Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , I think these comments were discarded as simple "grammar changes" earlier, but I believe they change the technical thrust of the document, and should be made: Routing protocols are subject to attacks that can harm individual users or the network operations as a whole. This document provides a description and a summary of generic threats that affects routing protocols in general. The work describes threats, including threat sources and capabilities, threat actions, and threat consequences as well as a breakdown of routing functions that might be separately attacked. Replace with: -- Routing protocols carry information about the topology of a network which can be used to discover the best path to any given destination within the network. The best path may be chosen based on its cost in terms of bandwidth, delay, hop count, or other metric signifying the length of the path, or it may be chosen based on some set of policies designed by the network administrator. In either case, devices which forward traffic (routers), using information and algorithms provided by routing protocols, can make intelligent decisions when forwarding traffic from one port to another. Routing protocols, then are vulnerable to attacks against the transportation of topology data, and attacks against the validity of the topology data carried. This document describes the vulnerabilities of routing protocols, including how they can be attacked in one of these two areas, and how such attacks can be used to disrupt or otherwise harm individual use of the network's resources, or force a failure in the network denying the use of the network's resources in general. This work describes such attack methods in terms of threats, including threat sources and capabilities, threat actions, and threat consequences. -- Russ __________________________________ riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 13 22:34:28 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11849 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:34:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19btAA-00064o-Kh for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:34:02 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6E2Y2kZ023352 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:34:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19btAA-00064Z-HW for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:34:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11841 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:33:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19btA7-0000ly-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:33:59 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19btA6-0000lv-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:33:58 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19btA9-00063T-66; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:34:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bt9O-00063C-7O for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:33:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11833 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:33:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bt9K-0000lo-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:33:10 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.70] helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bt9K-0000lk-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:33:10 -0400 Received: from cisco.com (uzura.cisco.com [64.102.17.77]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h6E2WcMK010091 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:32:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from russpc.nc.rr.com (rtp-vpn2-158.cisco.com [10.82.240.158]) by cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA05512 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:32:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:32:37 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) From: Russ White Reply-To: Russ White To: Routing Protocols Security Working Group Message-ID: X-X-Sender: ruwhite@uzura.cisco.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [RPSEC] Comments on Section 1, Introduction Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , I would suggest we replace this section: denial of service, flooding attacks and others. The document does not consider threats that result from bad implementations that are related to specific routing. The security requirements derived from this threat analysis are intended to be used as guidance to those who are designing routing protocols. with: While its well known that bad, incomplete, or poor implementations of routing protocols may, in themselves, lead to routing problems or failures, or may increase the risk of a network being attacked successfully, these issues are not considered here. This document only considers attacks against robust, well considered implementations of routing protocols, as outlined in [OSPF], [IS-IS], [RIP], and [BGP]. (provide references for the above) The security requirements derived from this analysis are intended to be used as guidance to those who are designing and modifying routing protocols. They may also be used by routing protocol implementors to increase the robustness of their impmementations. -- I'm not certain we reached any concensus on list. :-) Russ __________________________________ riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 13 22:38:29 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11931 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:38:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19btE3-0006Uq-2F for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:38:03 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6E2c3Ce024966 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:38:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19btE2-0006Ub-U3 for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:38:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11912 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:37:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19btDz-0000n1-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:37:59 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19btDy-0000my-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:37:58 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19btE1-0006SV-1B; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:38:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19btDQ-0006Kb-0k for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:37:24 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11905 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:37:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19btDM-0000mm-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:37:20 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19btDL-0000mg-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:37:20 -0400 Received: from cisco.com (64.102.124.13) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Jul 2003 19:40:35 -0700 Received: from cisco.com (uzura.cisco.com [64.102.17.77]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h6E2amAi007655 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:36:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from russpc.nc.rr.com (rtp-vpn2-158.cisco.com [10.82.240.158]) by cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA05692 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:36:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:36:47 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) From: Russ White Reply-To: Russ White To: Routing Protocols Security Working Group In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: X-X-Sender: ruwhite@uzura.cisco.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [RPSEC] Re: Threats Draft Issue 6: Section 4.7 Overload Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , BTW--my initial comment was to drop this section entirely, since I don't really see why we should even discuss data and control planes as concepts within routing protocols. In fact, I think there are other sections within the docuemt that discuss this, and I think they should all be dropped. Russ On Sun, 13 Jul 2003, Russ White wrote: > > Sandy expressed some reservations about this section, stating that > overloading the control plane and overloading the data plane are two > seperate topics, and that routing protocol design could do little to help > in either of them. > > Is there any concensus on this within the working group? I think we need > some more discussion, probably? > > :-) > > Russ > > __________________________________ > riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone > > __________________________________ riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 13 23:03:36 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA12222 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:03:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19btcN-00072P-4k for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:03:11 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6E33Bq0027052 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:03:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19btcM-00072F-Uz for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:03:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA12213 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:03:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19btcJ-0000sU-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:03:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19btcI-0000sR-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:03:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19btcD-000719-JH; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:03:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19btc8-00070y-1G for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:02:56 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA12210 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:02:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19btc4-0000sO-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:02:52 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.70] helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19btc3-0000sG-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:02:51 -0400 Received: from cisco.com (uzura.cisco.com [64.102.17.77]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h6E32JMK014632 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:02:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from russpc.nc.rr.com (rtp-vpn2-158.cisco.com [10.82.240.158]) by cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA06635 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:02:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:02:18 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) From: Russ White Reply-To: Russ White To: Routing Protocols Security Working Group In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: X-X-Sender: ruwhite@uzura.cisco.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [RPSEC] Re: Threats Draft Issue 4: Section 3.1 Threat Sources Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , My original thought on this was to define these two seperately, but to call them one thing within the draft. For instance, in my notes for section 3, I had originally: Replace: This section develops a model that can be used to identify the threats that can affect routing protocols in general. The model examines the possible threats that routing protocols can be exposed to from unauthorized entities. with: The model developed in this section can be used to identify threats to any routing protocol. It examines attacks which can be launched against routing from subverted entities within the routing system, and from entities outside the routing system. Both of these types of entities are called unauthorized entities. -- I think this might be a good compromise text to work from. :-) Russ On Sun, 13 Jul 2003, Russ White wrote: > > We don't seem to have gotten through a concensus on the threat sources > portion of the threats draft, specifically in the seperation of > unauthorized and masquerading threat sources. So, what I seem to have from > the thread is: > > Sandy: We shouldn't consider masquerading and unauthorized as different > Russ: Define the ideas, but combine them throughout the draft as one > problem > > Others? I'm not certain where we are on this topic. > > :-) > > Russ > > __________________________________ > riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone > > __________________________________ riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 13 23:10:32 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA12358 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:10:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19btj5-0007Tk-5r for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:10:07 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6E3A7LY028742 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:10:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19btj4-0007TV-BB for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:10:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA12342 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:10:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19btj0-0000uj-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:10:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19btiz-0000ug-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:10:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19btj0-0007RR-2p; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:10:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19btiB-0007Qk-VB for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:09:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA12339 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:09:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bti8-0000uY-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:09:08 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.70] helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bti7-0000uP-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:09:07 -0400 Received: from cisco.com (uzura.cisco.com [64.102.17.77]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h6E38ZAi011912 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:08:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from russpc.nc.rr.com (rtp-vpn2-158.cisco.com [10.82.240.158]) by cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA06775 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:08:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:08:35 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) From: Russ White Reply-To: Russ White To: Routing Protocols Security Working Group Message-ID: X-X-Sender: ruwhite@uzura.cisco.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [RPSEC] References in the Threats Draft Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , These should all be words, rather than numbers. This may seem a trivial matter, but it greatly increases readability to include references as words rather than numbers. :-) Russ __________________________________ riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 13 23:13:29 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA12421 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:13:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19btlt-0007dM-Ml for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:13:01 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6E3D14O029338 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:13:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19btlt-0007d7-CG for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:13:01 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA12415 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:12:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19btlr-0000w7-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:12:59 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19btlq-0000w4-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:12:58 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19btlr-0007b6-Nj; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:12:59 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19btlM-0007am-BW for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:12:28 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA12409 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:12:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19btlK-0000vp-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:12:26 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19btlJ-0000vO-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:12:25 -0400 Received: from cisco.com (64.102.124.12) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Jul 2003 20:15:42 -0700 Received: from cisco.com (uzura.cisco.com [64.102.17.77]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h6E3BsMK015632 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:11:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from russpc.nc.rr.com (rtp-vpn2-158.cisco.com [10.82.240.158]) by cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA06846 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:11:53 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:11:53 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) From: Russ White Reply-To: Russ White To: Routing Protocols Security Working Group Message-ID: X-X-Sender: ruwhite@uzura.cisco.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [RPSEC] Section 3.1.1 Comments Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , I think I originally asked this: Replace this: neighbor. For example, in OSPF (that is, before the MD5 part was added), OSPF speaks to all routers on the local link that answer to the AllSPFRouters multicast address. Furthermore, MANET protocols frequently speak over the broadcast link. with: For example, an OSPF router will form a peering relationship with any attached device which appears to be running OSPF, unless MD5 authentication (or some other means) is used to prevent the peering relationship from forming. I'd pull the manet example, one is enough here, and reference the OSPF MD5 draft. -- Did we reach a concensus on this? :-) Russ __________________________________ riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 13 23:15:30 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA12473 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:15:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19btnq-0007iF-QQ for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:15:02 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6E3F23j029641 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:15:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19btnq-0007i0-IJ for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:15:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA12463 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:14:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19btno-0000x2-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:15:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19btno-0000wz-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:15:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19btno-0007fx-SF; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:15:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19btnI-0007fg-9S for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:14:28 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA12460 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:14:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19btnG-0000ww-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:14:26 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.70] helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19btnF-0000we-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:14:25 -0400 Received: from cisco.com (uzura.cisco.com [64.102.17.77]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h6E3DsMK015903 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:13:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from russpc.nc.rr.com (rtp-vpn2-158.cisco.com [10.82.240.158]) by cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA06877 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:13:53 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:13:53 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) From: Russ White Reply-To: Russ White To: Routing Protocols Security Working Group Message-ID: X-X-Sender: ruwhite@uzura.cisco.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [RPSEC] Question on Section 3.1.2.1 Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , 3.1.2.1 Threat Consequence Zone A threat consequence zone covers an area within which the network operations have been affected by the threat consequences. I've never understood the consequences of a threat--do you mean the area within which network operation has been affected by the consequences of an attack? It seems to me what you're trying to say is the zone where network operations would be impacted by an attack if a given threat were exploited? Was this question ever resolved? :-) Russ __________________________________ riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 14 16:49:40 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA25044 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:49:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cAG1-0001RD-6I for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:49:13 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6EKnDri005519 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:49:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cAFz-0001Qw-ME for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:49:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA25002 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:49:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cAFx-0007mD-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:49:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cAFx-0007mA-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:49:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cAFp-0001Pp-BC; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:49:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cAD5-0001Ei-W4 for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:46:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA24757 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:46:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cAD4-0007iM-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:46:10 -0400 Received: from mesa.bbnplanet.com ([171.78.172.21]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cAD3-0007iF-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:46:09 -0400 Received: from localhost (ttauber@localhost) by mesa.bbnplanet.com (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h6EKjUr06096; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:45:30 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: mesa.bbnplanet.com: ttauber owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:45:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Tony Tauber X-X-Sender: ttauber@mesa.bbnplanet.com To: Russ White cc: Routing Protocols Security Working Group Subject: Re: [RPSEC] References in the Threats Draft In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sun, 13 Jul 2003, Russ White wrote: > These should all be words, rather than numbers. This may seem a > trivial matter, but it greatly increases readability to include > references as words rather than numbers. Yes, yes, YES! I always recommend this change on drafts I do a deep review of. This was part of my comments to some of the original revisions and I actually put them into the first "individual" submitted draft on behalf of the authors. It seems like it didn't make it into the second revision (WG submission). Perhaps the problem was the XML generator mechanism that was used for authoring that doesn't understand non-numeric (ie. "mnemonic") references? Tony _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 14 16:50:31 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA25127 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:50:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cAGq-0001Y6-OY for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:50:04 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6EKo45x005948 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:50:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cAGq-0001Xr-Kk for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:50:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA25076 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:50:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cAGo-0007nJ-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:50:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cAGn-0007nG-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:50:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cAGn-0001VD-1j; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:50:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cA7H-0000sx-Dj for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:40:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA24271 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:40:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cA7F-0007ap-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:40:09 -0400 Received: from mesa.bbnplanet.com ([171.78.172.21]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cA7E-0007aG-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:40:08 -0400 Received: from localhost (ttauber@localhost) by mesa.bbnplanet.com (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h6EKdSU06089; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:39:28 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: mesa.bbnplanet.com: ttauber owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:39:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Tony Tauber X-X-Sender: ttauber@mesa.bbnplanet.com To: Russ White cc: Routing Protocols Security Working Group Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Comments on the Abstract In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , I disagree, the proposed text is too wordy for an abstract. I think the existing one suffices. The new text can be added to the Introduction if need be, though I don't think it's necessary in this case. The first paragraph is textbook material. I'd hope anyone who's involved in the IETF has already gotten the basics of what a routing protocol does even if it's not their area of expertise. I know you've had the textbook-writing hat on recently. You may have taken it off but still have "hat head". 8-) Tony On Sun, 13 Jul 2003, Russ White wrote: > I think these comments were discarded as simple "grammar changes" > earlier, but I believe they change the technical thrust of the > document, and should be made: > > Routing protocols are subject to attacks that can harm individual > users or the network operations as a whole. This document > provides a description and a summary of generic threats that > affects routing protocols in general. The work describes threats, > including threat sources and capabilities, threat actions, and > threat consequences as well as a breakdown of routing functions > that might be separately attacked. > > Replace with: > > -- > Routing protocols carry information about the topology of a network > which can be used to discover the best path to any given destination > within the network. The best path may be chosen based on its cost in > terms of bandwidth, delay, hop count, or other metric signifying the > length of the path, or it may be chosen based on some set of > policies designed by the network administrator. In either case, > devices which forward traffic (routers), using information and > algorithms provided by routing protocols, can make intelligent > decisions when forwarding traffic from one port to another. > > Routing protocols, then are vulnerable to attacks against the > transportation of topology data, and attacks against the validity of > the topology data carried. This document describes the > vulnerabilities of routing protocols, including how they can be > attacked in one of these two areas, and how such attacks can be used > to disrupt or otherwise harm individual use of the network's > resources, or force a failure in the network denying the use of the > network's resources in general. > > This work describes such attack methods in terms of threats, > including threat sources and capabilities, threat actions, and > threat consequences. > -- > > Russ _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 14 17:03:30 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25667 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:03:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cATP-0002Ku-6Q for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:03:03 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6EL33Av008974 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:03:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cATP-0002Kf-30 for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:03:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25661 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:02:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cATM-00009b-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:03:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cATM-00009Y-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:03:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cATM-0002JU-WE; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:03:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cASu-0002J8-2U for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:02:32 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25655 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:02:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cASr-00009P-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:02:30 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cASr-000090-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:02:29 -0400 Received: from cisco.com (64.102.124.12) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Jul 2003 14:05:55 -0700 Received: from cisco.com (uzura.cisco.com [64.102.17.77]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h6EL1tMK020784; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:01:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from russpc.nc.rr.com (rtp-vpn1-531.cisco.com [10.82.226.19]) by cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA26319; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:01:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:01:56 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) From: Russ White Reply-To: Russ White To: Tony Tauber cc: Routing Protocols Security Working Group Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Comments on the Abstract In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: X-X-Sender: ruwhite@uzura.cisco.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > I disagree, the proposed text is too wordy for an abstract. I think the > existing one suffices. The new text can be added to the Introduction if > need be, though I don't think it's necessary in this case. The first > paragraph is textbook material. I'd hope anyone who's involved in the > IETF has already gotten the basics of what a routing protocol does even > if it's not their area of expertise. I know you've had the > textbook-writing hat on recently. You may have taken it off but still > have "hat head". 8-) :-) > > Routing protocols are subject to attacks that can harm individual > > users or the network operations as a whole. This document Could we at least change the first sentecnce, then, to something more grammatical and thorough? "Attacks against a routing protocol can harm individual or large numbers of network users by impacting the network's ability to deliver packets to their intended destination." And, again, throughout: "The work" should be replaced with "This work." It's not a third party thing--you're describing the draft from within the draft, not another document from within the draft. :-) Russ __________________________________ riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 14 17:16:31 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA26114 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:16:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cAg0-0003PJ-Mm for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:16:04 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6ELG4lM013093 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:16:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cAg0-0003P6-G2 for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:16:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA26095 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:16:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cAfy-0000FN-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:16:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cAfx-0000FK-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:16:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cAfy-0003Nv-Kn; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:16:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cAfp-0003Nc-In for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:15:53 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA26087 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:15:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cAfn-0000FA-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:15:51 -0400 Received: from mesa.bbnplanet.com ([171.78.172.21]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cAfm-0000Ex-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:15:50 -0400 Received: from localhost (ttauber@localhost) by mesa.bbnplanet.com (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h6ELF6v06106; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:15:06 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: mesa.bbnplanet.com: ttauber owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:15:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Tony Tauber X-X-Sender: ttauber@mesa.bbnplanet.com To: Russ White cc: Routing Protocols Security Working Group Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Comments on the Abstract In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, 14 Jul 2003, Russ White wrote: > > > Routing protocols are subject to attacks that can harm > > > individual users or the network operations as a whole. This > > > document > > Could we at least change the first sentecnce, then, to something more > grammatical and thorough? > > "Attacks against a routing protocol can harm individual or large > numbers of network users by impacting the network's ability to > deliver packets to their intended destination." That's fine or just change "the network operations" to either "the network's operations" or "network operations". > And, again, throughout: "The work" should be replaced with "This > work." It's not a third party thing--you're describing the draft > from within the draft, not another document from within the draft. Agreed. Tony ---- ps. In your message about "Comments on Section1, Introduction" you proposed text starting with: "While its well known that bad, incomplete, or poor implementations of routing protocols may, in themselves, lead to routing problems or..." That "its" should be "it's". I didn't bother then but we're on the grammatical side so I bring it up. I like that stuff. -T _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 14 17:18:29 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA26233 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:18:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cAhu-0003VP-Kk for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:18:02 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6ELI20v013469 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:18:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cAhu-0003VA-Gt for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:18:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA26177 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:17:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cAhs-0000Gp-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:18:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cAhr-0000Gm-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:17:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cAht-0003TC-9h; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:18:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cAh3-0003Si-56 for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:17:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA26137 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:17:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cAh0-0000Fx-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:17:07 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-2-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.71] helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cAgy-0000Fe-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:17:05 -0400 Received: from cisco.com (64.102.124.13) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Jul 2003 14:15:42 -0700 Received: from cisco.com (uzura.cisco.com [64.102.17.77]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h6ELGWAi007876; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:16:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from russpc.nc.rr.com (rtp-vpn1-531.cisco.com [10.82.226.19]) by cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA27505; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:16:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:16:31 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) From: Russ White Reply-To: Russ White To: Tony Tauber cc: Routing Protocols Security Working Group Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Comments on the Abstract In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: X-X-Sender: ruwhite@uzura.cisco.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > > > > Routing protocols are subject to attacks that can harm > > > > individual users or the network operations as a whole. This > > > > document > > > > Could we at least change the first sentecnce, then, to something more > > grammatical and thorough? > > > > "Attacks against a routing protocol can harm individual or large > > numbers of network users by impacting the network's ability to > > deliver packets to their intended destination." > > That's fine or just change "the network operations" to either "the > network's operations" or "network operations". This would work as well.... > ps. In your message about "Comments on Section1, Introduction" you > proposed text starting with: > > "While its well known that bad, incomplete, or poor implementations of > routing protocols may, in themselves, lead to routing problems or..." > > That "its" should be "it's". I didn't bother then but we're on the > grammatical side so I bring it up. I like that stuff. -T Sure you don't want to edit some books? :-) Russ __________________________________ riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 15 11:46:52 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24825 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:46:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cS0Y-0004O1-SI for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:46:26 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6FFkQ75016855 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:46:26 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cS0Y-0004Nm-Ft for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:46:26 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24815 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:46:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cS0X-00036n-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:46:25 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cS0R-00036i-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:46:19 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cS08-0004N0-RC; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:46:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cRzh-0004JI-5p for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:45:33 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24774 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:45:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cRzf-00036J-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:45:31 -0400 Received: from aragorn.bbn.com ([128.33.0.62]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cRzP-00033v-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:45:15 -0400 Received: from [81.160.154.206] (ssh.bbn.com [192.1.50.70]) by aragorn.bbn.com (8.12.7/8.12.7) with ESMTP id h6FFhSD9014154; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:43:29 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: kent@localhost Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:43:39 -0400 To: Russ White From: Stephen Kent Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Threats Draft Issue 7: Ownership as a Term Cc: Routing Protocols Security Working Group Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.28 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , At 22:15 -0400 7/13/03, Russ White wrote: >IS the term "ownership" appropriate when discussing the advertisement of a >route or prefix? It doesn't appear to be, although it is used that way >within the draft, for instance section 4.5 and others. It appears that we >are concerned about attacks where a router claims to have reachability to a >given destination, not ownership of that destination, so the term is rather >loose, and we should work around it. > >Thoughts? > >Russ > In BGP, the appropriate term seems to be "right to use" instead of "ownership" when referring to an organization that has address space (prefixes) allocated to it. With regard to a router advertisement (an UPDATE), the origin AS is asserting that it has been authorized by the "owner" to advertise the prefix in question. Frankly, the alternative terms are awkward, so I suggest we stick with "owner" and put in a note about the preferred terms and our desire to stick with less verbose terminology. Steve _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 15 12:00:39 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25286 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:00:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cSDt-00050p-Av for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:00:13 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6FG0D0s019263 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:00:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cSDt-00050c-6k for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:00:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25268 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:00:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cSDr-0003E5-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:00:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cSDm-0003Dz-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:00:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cSDh-0004wr-EB; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:00:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cSDJ-0004w8-F6 for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:59:37 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25234 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:59:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cSDI-0003Dg-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:59:36 -0400 Received: from cumin.apnic.net ([202.12.29.59] helo=apnic.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cSD6-0003BS-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:59:25 -0400 Received: from zippy (dhcp19.apnic.net [202.12.29.148]) by apnic.net (8.12.8/8.12) with ESMTP id h6FFwZPj020764; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 01:58:37 +1000 From: "Paul Wilson" To: "'Stephen Kent'" , "'Russ White'" Cc: "'Routing Protocols Security Working Group'" Subject: RE: [RPSEC] Threats Draft Issue 7: Ownership as a Term Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 01:58:43 +1000 Organization: APNIC Message-ID: <63B9746D4A92BF498D78584958F537E30A50B9@lotus.exchange> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-AP-Spam-Status: No, hits=-106.2 required=7 X-AP-Spam-Score: -106.2 (notspam) BAYES_20,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,QUOTE_TWICE_1,USER_IN_WHITELIST X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.15 (www dot roaringpenguin dot com slash mimedefang) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > -----Original Message----- > From: rpsec-admin@ietf.org [mailto:rpsec-admin@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Stephen Kent > Sent: Wednesday, 16 July 2003 1:44 AM > To: Russ White > Cc: Routing Protocols Security Working Group > Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Threats Draft Issue 7: Ownership as a Term > > > In BGP, the appropriate term seems to be "right to use" instead of > "ownership" when referring to an organization that has address space > (prefixes) allocated to it. With regard to a router advertisement (an > UPDATE), the origin AS is asserting that it has been authorized by > the "owner" to advertise the prefix in question. Frankly, the > alternative terms are awkward, so I suggest we stick with "owner" and > put in a note about the preferred terms and our desire to stick with > less verbose terminology. In the RIR world, we tend to refer to a "registered holder" (or simply "holder") of an address block or AS number, in preference to "owner". I would suggest that you consider "holder" as an alternative which is no more awkward. Paul Wilson APNIC _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 15 12:59:37 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26892 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:59:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cT8y-000857-TQ for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:59:13 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6FGxCFo031064 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:59:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cT8y-00084x-PL for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:59:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26877 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:59:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cT8x-0003jy-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:59:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cT8r-0003jv-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:59:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cT8n-00082r-6L; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:59:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cT8a-00082d-Of for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:58:48 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26866 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:58:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cT8Y-0003jk-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:58:46 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.70] helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cT8M-0003j3-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:58:34 -0400 Received: from cisco.com (uzura.cisco.com [64.102.17.77]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h6FGsKMK017749; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:54:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dhcp-64-102-60-168.cisco.com (dhcp-64-102-60-168.cisco.com [64.102.60.168]) by cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA21462; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:54:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:54:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Russ White Reply-To: Russ White To: Tony Tauber cc: Stephen Kent , Routing Protocols Security Working Group Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Threats Draft Issue 7: Ownership as a Term In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , So, we have: -- use "own," with a definition to explain what we really mean -- use 'authorized," which may entail some rewording/feel awkward? -- use "holder,' which may also be awkward Any other suggestions? Should we take a humm on one of these three? :-) Russ On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, Tony Tauber wrote: > On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, Stephen Kent wrote: > > > At 22:15 -0400 7/13/03, Russ White wrote: > > >IS the term "ownership" appropriate when discussing the > > >advertisement of a route or prefix? It doesn't appear to be, > > >although it is used that way within the draft, for instance section > > >4.5 and others. It appears that we are concerned about attacks > > >where a router claims to have reachability to a given destination, > > >not ownership of that destination, so the term is rather loose, and > > >we should work around it. > > > > > >Thoughts? > > > > > >Russ > > > > > > > In BGP, the appropriate term seems to be "right to use" instead of > > "ownership" when referring to an organization that has address space > > (prefixes) allocated to it. With regard to a router advertisement > > (an UPDATE), the origin AS is asserting that it has been authorized > > by the "owner" to advertise the prefix in question. Frankly, the > > alternative terms are awkward, so I suggest we stick with "owner" > > and put in a note about the preferred terms and our desire to stick > > with less verbose terminology. > > > > Steve > > How about "authorization" to advertise? > Since we're trying to be generic, we ought to consider the case of a > network under a single administration where the terminology of > "ownership" makes no sense but the administrator of the network could > be said to be authoritative. For instance the administrator can > decide that "this network belongs over here, that one belongs over > there" and might also delegate some parts to sub-administrators. > > OK. Egg on my face, I went back to the draft to try and propose > alternate language and it looks like there's no mention of "ownership" > or any form of the word "own" in the -01 draft from the IETF site. > Looking back through my records, it looks like it was part of the > section on overclaiming in the -00 rev but Abbie already updated it to > read: > > Over-claiming occurs when a subverted router advertises its control > of some network resources, while in reality it does not, or the > advertisement is not authorized. > > So, one down, X to go.... > > Tony > __________________________________ riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 15 13:05:33 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27089 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:05:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cTEi-0008ON-Of for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:05:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6FH58dw032253 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:05:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cTEi-0008O8-L9 for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:05:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27078 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:05:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cTEg-0003oZ-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:05:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cTEb-0003oW-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:05:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cTEb-0008Lb-Ei; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:05:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cSNd-00065W-0v for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:10:17 -0400 Received: from mesa.bbnplanet.com (mesa.bbnplanet.com [171.78.172.21]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25684 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:10:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (ttauber@localhost) by mesa.bbnplanet.com (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h6FG2UJ06825; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:02:30 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: mesa.bbnplanet.com: ttauber owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:02:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Tony Tauber X-X-Sender: ttauber@mesa.bbnplanet.com To: Stephen Kent cc: Russ White , Routing Protocols Security Working Group Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Threats Draft Issue 7: Ownership as a Term In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, Stephen Kent wrote: > At 22:15 -0400 7/13/03, Russ White wrote: > >IS the term "ownership" appropriate when discussing the > >advertisement of a route or prefix? It doesn't appear to be, > >although it is used that way within the draft, for instance section > >4.5 and others. It appears that we are concerned about attacks > >where a router claims to have reachability to a given destination, > >not ownership of that destination, so the term is rather loose, and > >we should work around it. > > > >Thoughts? > > > >Russ > > > > In BGP, the appropriate term seems to be "right to use" instead of > "ownership" when referring to an organization that has address space > (prefixes) allocated to it. With regard to a router advertisement > (an UPDATE), the origin AS is asserting that it has been authorized > by the "owner" to advertise the prefix in question. Frankly, the > alternative terms are awkward, so I suggest we stick with "owner" > and put in a note about the preferred terms and our desire to stick > with less verbose terminology. > > Steve How about "authorization" to advertise? Since we're trying to be generic, we ought to consider the case of a network under a single administration where the terminology of "ownership" makes no sense but the administrator of the network could be said to be authoritative. For instance the administrator can decide that "this network belongs over here, that one belongs over there" and might also delegate some parts to sub-administrators. OK. Egg on my face, I went back to the draft to try and propose alternate language and it looks like there's no mention of "ownership" or any form of the word "own" in the -01 draft from the IETF site. Looking back through my records, it looks like it was part of the section on overclaiming in the -00 rev but Abbie already updated it to read: Over-claiming occurs when a subverted router advertises its control of some network resources, while in reality it does not, or the advertisement is not authorized. So, one down, X to go.... Tony _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 16 04:12:42 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA20355 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 04:12:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19chOa-0001Ex-1w for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 04:12:16 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6G8CGLP004761 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 04:12:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19chOZ-0001Ei-RQ for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 04:12:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA20350 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 04:12:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19chOX-0004RM-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 04:12:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19chOR-0004RJ-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 04:12:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19chOK-0001Ck-NK; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 04:12:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19chNm-00019L-3n for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 04:11:26 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA20307 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 04:11:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19chNj-0004Qy-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 04:11:23 -0400 Received: from aragorn.bbn.com ([128.33.0.62]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19chNT-0004Q9-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 04:11:07 -0400 Received: from [81.160.154.206] (ssh.bbn.com [192.1.50.70]) by aragorn.bbn.com (8.12.7/8.12.7) with ESMTP id h6G89iDD014234; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 04:09:49 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: kent@localhost Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 03:55:54 -0400 To: Russ White From: Stephen Kent Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Threats Draft Issue 7: Ownership as a Term Cc: Tony Tauber , Routing Protocols Security Working Group Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.28 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , At 12:54 -0400 7/15/03, Russ White wrote: >So, we have: > >-- use "own," with a definition to explain what we really mean >-- use 'authorized," which may entail some rewording/feel awkward? >-- use "holder,' which may also be awkward > >Any other suggestions? Should we take a humm on one of these three? > >:-) > >Russ > I can live with holder, aqlthough I prefer owner. steve _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 16 07:46:37 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA26518 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:46:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ckja-0005Ek-6e for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:46:10 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6GBkAnY020126 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:46:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ckja-0005EX-2a for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:46:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA26506 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:46:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ckjZ-0006I4-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:46:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ckjT-0006I1-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:46:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ckjQ-0005DR-WC; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:46:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ckix-0005D0-8J for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:45:31 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA26498 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:45:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ckiw-0006Hn-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:45:30 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ckil-0006Hb-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:45:19 -0400 Received: from cisco.com (64.102.124.13) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Jul 2003 04:49:07 -0700 Received: from cisco.com (uzura.cisco.com [64.102.17.77]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h6GBifAi013059; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:44:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from russpc.nc.rr.com (rtp-vpn2-435.cisco.com [10.82.241.179]) by cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA03696; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:44:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:44:40 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) From: Russ White Reply-To: Russ White To: Stephen Kent cc: Tony Tauber , Routing Protocols Security Working Group Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Threats Draft Issue 7: Ownership as a Term In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: X-X-Sender: ruwhite@uzura.cisco.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Thanks. I think I prefer owner with the approrpriate definitions in the draft, as well. :-) Russ On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Stephen Kent wrote: > At 12:54 -0400 7/15/03, Russ White wrote: > >So, we have: > > > >-- use "own," with a definition to explain what we really mean > >-- use 'authorized," which may entail some rewording/feel awkward? > >-- use "holder,' which may also be awkward > > > >Any other suggestions? Should we take a humm on one of these three? > > > >:-) > > > >Russ > > > > I can live with holder, aqlthough I prefer owner. > > steve > __________________________________ riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 16 09:04:00 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA28655 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 09:04:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19clwU-0001DD-Ks for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 09:03:34 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6GD3Y1g004659 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 09:03:34 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19clwU-0001D4-Fp for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 09:03:34 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA28632 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 09:03:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19clvx-00013a-My; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 09:03:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19clvA-00012k-9T for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 09:02:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA28573 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 09:02:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19clv8-0006sg-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 09:02:10 -0400 Received: from kanfw1.ottawa.alcatel.ca ([192.75.23.69] helo=kanmx1.ca.alcatel.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19clux-0006sa-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 09:01:59 -0400 Received: (qmail 986 invoked from network); 16 Jul 2003 13:12:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO CAOTTM00147) (138.120.62.35) by kanmx1.ca.alcatel.com with SMTP; 16 Jul 2003 13:12:23 -0000 Message-ID: <038201c34b9a$6ab68860$233e788a@CAOTTM00147> From: "Emanuele Jones" To: "Manral V-G19459" , References: <653138C25D8AD6118292000347080A37055FBC5D@zin05exm02.corp.mot.com> Subject: Re: [RPSEC] OSPF vulnerabilities draft Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 09:01:38 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Vishwas, thank you for you suggestion, I agree with you in the sense that this draft may be usefull to the OSPF WG as well. I also believe that the RP-Sec WG is supposed to leverage knowledge about threats and vulnerabilities of existing routing protocols to better design the security requirement for future ones. BGP was defeneately covered by this group, I thought this draft could cover OSPF. For example, I do not recall any discussion about ways to permanently install malicious routes into an OSPF area without triggering *any* reaction, or things of this matter, which are a major security flaw in link-state protocols, where every peer knows the topology of its Area. These kind of problems will still be present in the security of next generation routing protocols unless we are aware of them today. Regards, Emanuele ----- Original Message ----- From: Manral V-G19459 To: 'Emanuele Jones' ; rpsec@ietf.org Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 2:32 AM Subject: RE: [RPSEC] OSPF vulnerabilities draft Hi Emanuele, The draft might actually fit better in the OSPF working group, wouldn't it? -Vishwas -----Original Message----- From: Emanuele Jones [mailto:emanuele.jones@alcatel.com] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 23:21 To: rpsec@ietf.org Subject: [RPSEC] OSPF vulnerabilities draft Greetings, I would like to introduce a new Internet Draft: draft-jones-OSPF-vuln-00.txt. This draft is now available at the IETF website. I believe that even though the group has already moved to the developing of a generic threat paper (draft-ietf-rpsec-routing-threats-01.txt), security of IGP has not been extensively covered and discussed as much as EGP's security was with BGP, SoBGP and SBGP. Thus, this paper may be a good occasion to initiate some work on that topic. This memo systematically dissects every message and every aspect of OSPF searching for vulnerabilities that could lead to insider, outsider or DoS attacks against the control and the data plane. The paper is more than just a literature survey about OSPF security; aside from discovering new vulnerabilities that came directly from the test bed, the draft highlights and describes a few "misconceptions" about OSPF's security such as "fight back" and remote attacker prevention. The Internet Draft is available at: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jones-ospf-vuln-00.txt Regards, Emanuele Emanuele Jones Alcatel Canada - R&I - Security group 600 March Road - Kanata, ON, Canada K2K 2E6 Phone: +1 613 784 5977 Fax: +1 613 784 8944 Email: emanuele.jones@alcatel.com _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 16 10:09:01 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA01663 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:09:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cmxP-00058m-Ij for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:08:35 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6GE8Zwx019754 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:08:35 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cmxP-00058X-FM for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:08:35 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA01603 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:08:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cmwq-00052h-FB; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:08:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cmwc-0004zg-Gj for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:07:46 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA01492 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:07:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cmwa-0007Sv-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:07:44 -0400 Received: from dog.tcb.net ([64.78.150.133]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cmwP-0007Sj-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:07:33 -0400 Received: from [81.160.194.110] (unknown [81.160.194.110]) by dog.tcb.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20DB32029A for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 08:08:34 -0600 (MDT) User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.1.2418 Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 08:06:21 -0600 Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Threats Draft Issue 7: Ownership as a Term From: Danny McPherson To: Routing Protocols Security Working Group Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 7/16/03 1:55 AM, "Stephen Kent" wrote: > I can live with holder, aqlthough I prefer owner. me too... -danny _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 17 10:58:14 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA10411 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 10:58:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19dACb-0006AW-Bf for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 10:57:49 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6HEvnmG023711 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 10:57:49 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19dACb-0006AM-7h for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 10:57:49 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA10396 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 10:57:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19dABp-00065S-8l; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 10:57:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19dABZ-00064o-SF for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 10:56:46 -0400 Received: from mesa.bbnplanet.com (mesa.bbnplanet.com [171.78.172.21]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA10315 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 10:56:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (ttauber@localhost) by mesa.bbnplanet.com (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h6HEn0t09224; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 10:49:00 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: mesa.bbnplanet.com: ttauber owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 10:49:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Tony Tauber X-X-Sender: ttauber@mesa.bbnplanet.com To: Emanuele Jones cc: Manral V-G19459 , rpsec@ietf.org Subject: Re: [RPSEC] OSPF vulnerabilities draftx In-Reply-To: <038201c34b9a$6ab68860$233e788a@CAOTTM00147> Message-ID: References: <653138C25D8AD6118292000347080A37055FBC5D@zin05exm02.corp.mot.com> <038201c34b9a$6ab68860$233e788a@CAOTTM00147> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Emanuele Jones wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Manral V-G19459 > > To: 'Emanuele Jones' ; rpsec@ietf.org > > Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 2:32 AM > > Subject: RE: [RPSEC] OSPF vulnerabilities draft > > > > Hi Emanuele, > > > > The draft might actually fit better in the OSPF working group, > > wouldn't it? > > > > -Vishwas > > Vishwas, > > thank you for you suggestion, I agree with you in the sense that > this draft may be usefull to the OSPF WG as well. I also believe > that the RP-Sec WG is supposed to leverage knowledge about threats > and vulnerabilities of existing routing protocols to better design > the security requirement for future ones. BGP was defeneately > covered by this group, I thought this draft could cover OSPF. Emanuele is correct, RPSEC is supposed to provide a focal point for attention from both the routing community and security commuity. Certainly, OSPF developers and WG should be interested as well in the details though we probably want to avoid cross-posting. Thanks, Tony _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 17 13:16:45 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA14213 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:16:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19dCMc-0005cs-Gd for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:16:18 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6HHGI7u021622 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:16:18 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19dCMa-0005cf-Hc for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:16:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA14191 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:16:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19dCMY-00001H-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:16:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19dCMS-000014-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:16:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19dCML-0005aS-BP; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:16:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19dCLT-0005Zo-Aj for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:15:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA14145 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:15:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19dCLQ-00000U-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:15:04 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.70] helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19dCLD-0007n6-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:14:52 -0400 Received: from cisco.com (uzura.cisco.com [64.102.17.77]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h6HHBmMK016778; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:11:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from russpc.nc.rr.com (rtp-vpn2-235.cisco.com [10.82.240.235]) by cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA06120; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:11:48 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:11:48 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) From: Russ White Reply-To: Russ White To: Tony Tauber cc: Emanuele Jones , Manral V-G19459 , rpsec@ietf.org Subject: Re: [RPSEC] OSPF vulnerabilities draftx In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <653138C25D8AD6118292000347080A37055FBC5D@zin05exm02.corp.mot.com> <038201c34b9a$6ab68860$233e788a@CAOTTM00147> X-X-Sender: ruwhite@uzura.cisco.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , I see no reason not to bring this sort of work into the RPsec working group. We are limited by our charter at the moment, but I think that as long as we agree that the generic threats and requirements documents must be done before we begin serious work on protocol specific threat models, there's no reason not to hold this type of work within the working group, letting them stay here until we can approach them more fully. Thoughts? :-) Russ On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Tony Tauber wrote: > On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Emanuele Jones wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: Manral V-G19459 > > > To: 'Emanuele Jones' ; rpsec@ietf.org > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 2:32 AM > > > Subject: RE: [RPSEC] OSPF vulnerabilities draft > > > > > > Hi Emanuele, > > > > > > The draft might actually fit better in the OSPF working group, > > > wouldn't it? > > > > > > -Vishwas > > > > Vishwas, > > > > thank you for you suggestion, I agree with you in the sense that > > this draft may be usefull to the OSPF WG as well. I also believe > > that the RP-Sec WG is supposed to leverage knowledge about threats > > and vulnerabilities of existing routing protocols to better design > > the security requirement for future ones. BGP was defeneately > > covered by this group, I thought this draft could cover OSPF. > > Emanuele is correct, RPSEC is supposed to provide a focal point for > attention from both the routing community and security commuity. > Certainly, OSPF developers and WG should be interested as well in the > details though we probably want to avoid cross-posting. > > Thanks, > > Tony > > _______________________________________________ > RPSEC mailing list > RPSEC@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec > __________________________________ riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 21 09:34:55 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA26773 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:34:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eao9-0004kI-2K for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:34:29 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6LDYTr7018241 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:34:29 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eao8-0004k8-Vt for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:34:29 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA26746 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:34:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eao7-0002qk-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:34:27 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eao1-0002qb-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:34:21 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eanh-0004dt-NK; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:34:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eanW-0004dW-J1 for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:33:50 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA26733 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:33:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eanU-0002q6-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:33:48 -0400 Received: from dns.nexthop.com ([65.247.36.216] helo=presque.nexthop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eanK-0002pf-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:33:38 -0400 Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.nexthop.com (8.12.9/8.11.1) id h6LDWS5D097050; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:32:28 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [65.247.36.31]) by presque.nexthop.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h6LDWOHr097043; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:32:24 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id h6LDWJO01188; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:32:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:32:19 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas To: Russ White Cc: Routing Protocols Security Working Group Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Re: Threats Draft Issue 6: Section 4.7 Overload Message-ID: <20030721093219.B1126@nexthop.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from ruwhite@cisco.com on Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 10:36:47PM -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 10:36:47PM -0400, Russ White wrote: > BTW--my initial comment was to drop this section entirely, since I don't > really see why we should even discuss data and control planes as concepts > within routing protocols. In fact, I think there are other sections within > the docuemt that discuss this, and I think they should all be dropped. The only attack I can trivially think of has to do with DoS attacks against the data plane that affect the control plane. One example is swamping the box with stuff that must be "process switched" and thus potentially affecting the routing protocols. The other is saturating a link in such a fashion that control information can't get through the link. A specific example of the latter is saturating your circuit to 99% which causes your peering sessions to drop out. > Russ -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 21 09:35:33 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA26801 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:35:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eaol-0004pq-PB for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:35:07 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6LDZ72J018580 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:35:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eaol-0004pb-L6 for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:35:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA26790 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:35:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eaoj-0002rL-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:35:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eaoe-0002rI-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:35:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eaof-0004oP-DT; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:35:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eaoa-0004o4-JI for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:34:56 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA26771 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:34:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eaoY-0002r2-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:34:54 -0400 Received: from dns.nexthop.com ([65.247.36.216] helo=presque.nexthop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eaoN-0002qH-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:34:44 -0400 Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.nexthop.com (8.12.9/8.11.1) id h6LDXtET097085; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:33:55 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [65.247.36.31]) by presque.nexthop.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h6LDXpHr097070; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:33:51 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id h6LDXkH01196; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:33:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:33:46 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas To: Russ White Cc: Routing Protocols Security Working Group Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Threats Draft Issue 7: Ownership as a Term Message-ID: <20030721093346.C1126@nexthop.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from ruwhite@cisco.com on Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 10:15:42PM -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , The distinction is one of origination versus re-advertisement. sobgp is meant to protect against that sort of attack in BGP. :-) On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 10:15:42PM -0400, Russ White wrote: > IS the term "ownership" appropriate when discussing the advertisement of a > route or prefix? It doesn't appear to be, although it is used that way > within the draft, for instance section 4.5 and others. It appears that we > are concerned about attacks where a router claims to have reachability to a > given destination, not ownership of that destination, so the term is rather > loose, and we should work around it. > > Thoughts? -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 21 10:40:48 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29601 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 10:40:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ebpu-0007e7-K6 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 10:40:23 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6LEeM9w029385 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 10:40:22 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ebpu-0007ds-DR for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 10:40:22 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29570 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 10:40:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ebpr-0003PW-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 10:40:19 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ebpm-0003PT-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 10:40:14 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ebpZ-0007bV-Ko; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 10:40:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ebol-0007ah-6I for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 10:39:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29528 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 10:39:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eboi-0003OV-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 10:39:08 -0400 Received: from auds951.usa.alcatel.com ([143.209.238.80]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eboX-0003Nu-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 10:38:57 -0400 Received: from alcatel.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by auds951.usa.alcatel.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h6LEbSwA004185; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:37:28 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <3F1BFAA6.FA3B0755@alcatel.com> Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:37:26 -0500 From: Alex Audu Reply-To: alex.audu@alcatel.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen Kent CC: Russ White , Tony Tauber , Routing Protocols Security Working Group Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Threats Draft Issue 7: Ownership as a Term References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'd go with "owner" too. Cheers, Alex. Stephen Kent wrote: > At 12:54 -0400 7/15/03, Russ White wrote: > >So, we have: > > > >-- use "own," with a definition to explain what we really mean > >-- use 'authorized," which may entail some rewording/feel awkward? > >-- use "holder,' which may also be awkward > > > >Any other suggestions? Should we take a humm on one of these three? > > > >:-) > > > >Russ > > > > I can live with holder, aqlthough I prefer owner. > > steve > > _______________________________________________ > RPSEC mailing list > RPSEC@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 21 19:36:45 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA14928 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 19:36:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ekCZ-0003PQ-UJ for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 19:36:20 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6LNaJcf013103 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 19:36:19 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ekCZ-0003PG-Q6 for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 19:36:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA14918 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 19:36:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ekCX-00075d-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 19:36:17 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ekCR-00075a-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 19:36:11 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ekCI-0003Lc-9n; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 19:36:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ekBn-0003L7-0U for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 19:35:31 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA14910 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 19:35:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ekBl-00075N-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 19:35:29 -0400 Received: from aragorn.bbn.com ([128.33.0.62]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ekBV-00074c-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 19:35:13 -0400 Received: from [12.159.173.178] (ssh.bbn.com [192.1.50.70]) by aragorn.bbn.com (8.12.7/8.12.7) with ESMTP id h6LNXxDB003691; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 19:34:01 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: kent@localhost Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20030721093346.C1126@nexthop.com> References: <20030721093346.C1126@nexthop.com> Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 10:44:48 -0400 To: Jeffrey Haas From: Stephen Kent Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Threats Draft Issue 7: Ownership as a Term Cc: Russ White , Routing Protocols Security Working Group Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.28 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , At 9:33 -0400 7/21/03, Jeffrey Haas wrote: >The distinction is one of origination versus re-advertisement. >sobgp is meant to protect against that sort of attack in BGP. :-) > >On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 10:15:42PM -0400, Russ White wrote: >> IS the term "ownership" appropriate when discussing the advertisement of a >> route or prefix? It doesn't appear to be, although it is used that way >> within the draft, for instance section 4.5 and others. It appears that we >> are concerned about attacks where a router claims to have reachability to a >> given destination, not ownership of that destination, so the term is rather >> loose, and we should work around it. >> >> Thoughts? > >-- >Jeff Haas >NextHop Technologies Jeff, the "ownership" vs. "right to use" vs. "holder" terminology deals exclusively with origin advertisements, not advertisement by later ASes. Both soBGP and S-BGP addresses this problem, in analogous ways. Steve _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 23 08:30:50 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA09576 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 08:30:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fIlB-0006rW-En for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 08:30:22 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6NCULtZ026376 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 08:30:21 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fIlB-0006rL-AQ for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 08:30:21 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA09570 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 08:30:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fIl9-0004D8-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 08:30:19 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fIl4-0004D1-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 08:30:14 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fIkq-0006qC-O5; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 08:30:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19egD5-00022U-TW for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 15:20:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08401 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 15:20:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19egD4-0005eu-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 15:20:34 -0400 Received: from teldanex.hiit.fi ([212.68.5.99] helo=n97.nomadiclab.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19egCt-0005ec-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 15:20:24 -0400 Received: from nomadiclab.com (polle.local.nikander.com [192.168.0.193]) by n97.nomadiclab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A8B11C; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 22:29:27 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <3F1C3CD4.4090603@nomadiclab.com> Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 22:19:48 +0300 From: Pekka Nikander Reply-To: Pekka Nikander User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: saag@mit.edu, ipsec@lists.tislabs.com, rpsec@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [RPSEC] New mailing list to discuss IP layer signalling security Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit As agreed at SAAG at IETF-57, Vienna, we now have a mailing list to discuss IP layer signalling security. The aim is to discuss the problem, and find out whether there would be enough of interest to look at the more generic problem to warrant an IETF working group. The ML is kindly hosted by VPNC (thanks, Paul). To subscribe, either access the web page at http://www.vpnc.org/ietf-ipsigsec/index.html or simply send a message to with the single word subscribe in the body of the message. To give people time to subscribe to the list, it is not yet possible to post to the list. Once posting becomes possible I will send a separate note to the *list* (not here). The mailing list is chartered as follows. If you think that this chartering is not what was earlier discussed at the saag ML or at the meeting, please send e-mail to me. ------------------------------ Initial ML Charter: The ietf-ipsigsec mailing list is for discussing standizing protocols or protocol components for securing IP layer signalling protocols, such as IPv6 Neighbor Discovery and Autoconfiguration, Mobile IP, Mobile IP optimization protocols, and perhaps some routing protocols. This mailing list may turn into an IETF Working Group. As a background, experience has shown that the IPsec Authentication Header (AH), as it is currently standardized, does not cover the requirements. Hence, for example, the Mobile IPv6 Route Optimization and Secure IPv6 Neighbor Discovery (SEND) both use more-or-less ad hoc, protocol specific mechanisms to reach their security goals. One purpose of this mailing list is to see if something can be learned from these experiences. The topics, to be discussed on the mailing list, are the following: * Address the need for generic protocol components that could be used to secure current and future IP layer (internetworking layer) signalling protocols. Examples of components to consider include Return Routability (RR) and Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA). * Progress towards a security model that would cover all or most IP layer signalling protocol security requirements. The focus is on situations where one cannot rely on existing or supposed security infrastructures. * Understand how the proposed separation of the identifier and locator roles of IP addresses may affect the security requirements in the IP layer signalling scope. * Based on the topics above, consider the applicability of the IPsec AH protocol. That is, it is allowed to state that there seems to be no use of AH within this space, or that AH seems to be a perfect match to the needs, as long as such statements are well founded and based on discussion on the items above. However, it is strictly out of scope to state opinions on AH without basing those opinions on clearly argumented technical discussion, or to discuss the applicability of AH for any other purpose but IP layer signalling security. _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 24 10:05:43 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07137 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:05:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fgib-0006f7-Fm for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:05:18 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6OE5HoT025608 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:05:17 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fgib-0006ex-CZ for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:05:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07020 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:05:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fgiY-0006FW-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:05:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fgiT-0006FN-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:05:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fghN-0006Sy-9q; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:04:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fgh1-0006S3-Sp for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:03:39 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA06822 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:03:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fggz-0006EX-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:03:37 -0400 Received: from herculanum.int-evry.fr ([157.159.11.15]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fggo-0006EB-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:03:26 -0400 Received: from sparte.int-evry.fr (spartebis.int-evry.fr [157.159.10.20]) by herculanum.int-evry.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D74B33D32; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 15:55:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from alpes.int-evry.fr (alpes.int-evry.fr [157.159.10.19]) by spartebis.int-evry.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id EED573F44C; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 16:17:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from sparte.int-evry.fr ([157.159.10.11]) by alpes.int-evry.fr (SAVSMTP 3.0.0.44) with SMTP id M2003072415550309687 ; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 15:55:03 +0200 Received: from localhost (ivan.int-evry.fr [157.159.100.48]) by sparte.int-evry.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A7733F44C; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 16:17:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from jjp by localhost with local id 19fgYf-0005Q8-00; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 15:55:01 +0200 Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 15:55:01 +0200 From: Jean-Jacques Puig To: Jeffrey Haas Cc: Russ White , Routing Protocols Security Working Group Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Re: Threats Draft Issue 6: Section 4.7 Overload Message-ID: <20030724135501.GC17957@ivan.int-evry.fr> References: <20030721093219.B1126@nexthop.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030721093219.B1126@nexthop.com> Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 09:32:19AM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > > The only attack I can trivially think of has to do with DoS attacks > against the data plane that affect the control plane. One example > is swamping the box with stuff that must be "process switched" > and thus potentially affecting the routing protocols. The other > is saturating a link in such a fashion that control information can't > get through the link. > > A specific example of the latter is saturating your circuit to 99% > which causes your peering sessions to drop out. Or to slow down in such a way that routing protocol convergence will let enough time for the attacker to enjoy current / intermediate routes state. Anyway, I think we should agree on the fact that this has little to do with the routing protocol. It would fit better in a document dealing with security of routing devices operations. -- Jean-Jacques Puig [homepage] http://www-lor.int-evry.fr/~puig/ _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 24 10:25:16 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08780 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:25:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fh1X-0008LX-MG for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:24:51 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6OEOpOm032084 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:24:51 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fh1X-0008LP-7b for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:24:51 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08751 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:24:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fh1U-0006P1-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:24:48 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fh1P-0006Oy-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:24:43 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fh0j-0008Hj-Ac; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:24:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fh0d-0008HY-TG for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:23:55 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08734 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:23:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fh0b-0006Od-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:23:53 -0400 Received: from herculanum.int-evry.fr ([157.159.11.15]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fh0Q-0006OR-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:23:42 -0400 Received: from sparte.int-evry.fr (spartebis.int-evry.fr [157.159.10.20]) by herculanum.int-evry.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F0DD33B04; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 16:23:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from alpes.int-evry.fr (alpes.int-evry.fr [157.159.10.19]) by spartebis.int-evry.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 346043F445; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 16:45:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from sparte.int-evry.fr ([157.159.10.11]) by alpes.int-evry.fr (SAVSMTP 3.0.0.44) with SMTP id M2003072416230606498 ; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 16:23:06 +0200 Received: from localhost (ivan.int-evry.fr [157.159.100.48]) by sparte.int-evry.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 041CC3F445; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 16:45:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from jjp by localhost with local id 19fgzo-0005S7-00; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 16:23:04 +0200 Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 16:23:04 +0200 From: Jean-Jacques Puig To: Russ White Cc: Routing Protocols Security Working Group Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Threats Draft Issue 6: Consistent Use of Blackhole Message-ID: <20030724142304.GD17957@ivan.int-evry.fr> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 10:13:18PM -0400, Russ White wrote: > > Sandy brought up, some time back, that the term blackhole didn't appear to > be used consistently throughout the threats draft. Does the WG feel this is > true? What could be done to the draft to clean this up, and make it better? Looks like blackhole is in effect used unconsistently throughout the draft, though it appears only twice in current version :). I think that it's worth considering that a blackhole is the damage part of a threat consequence as stated in section 3.1.2. The other occurence is (same section): It might be possible to design a security solution that protected against an attack that eavesdropped on one destination's traffic without protecting against an attack that overwhelmed a router. Or that prevented a starvation attack against one host, but not against a net wide blackhole. Is a starvation attack against a blackhole possible ? It would be attacking a damage, wouldn't it ? Correct rephrasing may be: Or that prevented a starvation attack against one host, but not against a net wide resources. Starvation of net wide resources may, as a consequence, result in a kind of net wide blackhole. This was my 2cts -- Jean-Jacques Puig [homepage] http://www-lor.int-evry.fr/~puig/ _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 25 14:52:43 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA15225 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:52:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19g7ft-00046c-5e for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:52:18 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6PIqHKe015778 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:52:17 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19g7ft-00046P-1Q for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:52:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA15217 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:52:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19g7fq-0002ek-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:52:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19g7fp-0002eg-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:52:13 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19g7fc-00044G-Vy; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:52:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19g7fN-000443-7q for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:51:45 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA15203 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:51:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19g7fK-0002eP-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:51:42 -0400 Received: from auds951.usa.alcatel.com ([143.209.238.80]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19g7fJ-0002eH-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:51:41 -0400 Received: from alcatel.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by auds951.usa.alcatel.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h6PIomwA005794; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 13:50:49 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <3F217C07.15160537@alcatel.com> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 13:50:47 -0500 From: Alex Audu Reply-To: alex.audu@alcatel.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jean-Jacques Puig CC: Jeffrey Haas , Russ White , Routing Protocols Security Working Group Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Re: Threats Draft Issue 6: Section 4.7 Overload References: <20030721093219.B1126@nexthop.com> <20030724135501.GC17957@ivan.int-evry.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The fact that you can indirectly attack the control by attacking the data plane doesn't lessen the ramification that it could be a threat to routing functions. I think this should be mentioned in the threat document. Designers should be able to refer to the threat document to help them develop more threat-safe routing devices. One benefit of separating Control and Data planes is that it may afford the control plane somewhat of an isolated castle that could be more easily shielded from outside attacks. One could do things like having separate streams for data and control between control and forwarding planes. Also, rate limiting could be used to improve safety. Regards, Alex. Jean-Jacques Puig wrote: > On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 09:32:19AM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > > > > The only attack I can trivially think of has to do with DoS attacks > > against the data plane that affect the control plane. One example > > is swamping the box with stuff that must be "process switched" > > and thus potentially affecting the routing protocols. The other > > is saturating a link in such a fashion that control information can't > > get through the link. > > > > A specific example of the latter is saturating your circuit to 99% > > which causes your peering sessions to drop out. > > Or to slow down in such a way that routing protocol convergence will > let enough time for the attacker to enjoy current / intermediate routes > state. > > Anyway, I think we should agree on the fact that this has little to do > with the routing protocol. It would fit better in a document dealing > with security of routing devices operations. > > -- > Jean-Jacques Puig > > [homepage] http://www-lor.int-evry.fr/~puig/ > > _______________________________________________ > RPSEC mailing list > RPSEC@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 25 22:00:36 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA05996 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:00:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gELy-0006J8-Vm for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:00:11 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6Q20AGR024245 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:00:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gELy-0006Iy-RY for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:00:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA05992 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:00:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gELv-0000Zb-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:00:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gELv-0000ZY-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:00:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gELp-0006Hf-EP; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:00:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gELg-0006H8-8r for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 21:59:52 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA05970 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 21:59:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gELd-0000ZA-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 21:59:49 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.70] helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gELc-0000Yl-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 21:59:48 -0400 Received: from cisco.com (uzura.cisco.com [64.102.17.77]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h6Q1xCAi018964; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 21:59:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from russpc.nc.rr.com (rtp-vpn2-656.cisco.com [10.82.242.144]) by cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA04723; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 21:59:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 21:59:10 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) From: Russ White Reply-To: Russ White To: Alex Audu cc: Jean-Jacques Puig , Jeffrey Haas , Routing Protocols Security Working Group Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Re: Threats Draft Issue 6: Section 4.7 Overload In-Reply-To: <3F217C07.15160537@alcatel.com> Message-ID: References: <20030721093219.B1126@nexthop.com> <20030724135501.GC17957@ivan.int-evry.fr> <3F217C07.15160537@alcatel.com> X-X-Sender: ruwhite@uzura.cisco.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > The fact that you can indirectly attack the control by attacking the data > plane doesn't lessen the ramification that it could be a threat to > routing functions. I think this should be mentioned in the threat > document. > > Designers should be able to refer to the threat document to help them > develop more threat-safe routing devices. I tend to diagree--this is at a lower layer, and we shouldn'tneed to mention every possible lower layer attack. For instance, gaining access to the console can also get you into a position to attack the routing system, but I'm not certain we should include that in the threat analysis. > One benefit of separating Control and Data planes is that it may afford > the control plane somewhat of an isolated castle that could be more > easily shielded from outside attacks. One could do things like having > separate streams for data and control between control and forwarding > planes. Also, rate limiting could be used to improve safety. I don't think the conclusion that separating the data plane from the control plane is much help in preventing port flooding attacks. The router still has to receive packets in order to run a routing protocol; seperating the data plane from the control plane isn't going to stop an attacker from attacking thosse ports open for a router to receive packets. Seperating the data and control plane is a good characteristic in many situations, but as a method to provide security, I'm not certain it actually helps anything (?). :-) Russ __________________________________ riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 25 22:42:30 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA06752 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:42:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gF0Y-0007wO-1T for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:42:06 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6Q2g6IK030518 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:42:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gF0X-0007w9-Um for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:42:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA06739 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:41:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gF0U-0000nN-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:42:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gF0U-0000nK-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:42:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gF0T-0007v0-PJ; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:42:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gF03-0007uM-0X for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:41:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA06721 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:41:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gEzz-0000mk-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:41:31 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gEzz-0000lt-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:41:31 -0400 Received: from cisco.com (64.102.124.13) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Jul 2003 19:41:03 -0700 Received: from cisco.com (uzura.cisco.com [64.102.17.77]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h6Q2exAi025863 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:40:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from russpc.nc.rr.com (rtp-vpn2-656.cisco.com [10.82.242.144]) by cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA06544 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:40:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:40:57 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) From: Russ White Reply-To: Russ White To: Routing Protocols Security Working Group Message-ID: X-X-Sender: ruwhite@uzura.cisco.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [RPSEC] Threats Draft Issues: Where we Stand? Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Y'all: We've had some discussion over some of the issues on the threats draft I had recorded from various places; below is a summary of what I have so far. We need to get this cleaned up and finished up, so we can move on to other work in the near future. In other words: Please read the drafts and the issues, and comment on them, so we can make certain we have some semblance of agreement on each of the issues. I think Abbi has promised a revision in two weeks, if we can come to agreement on each of these issues. Is there anyone on list that thinks the draft, in general, is "not right," in some way? Are we all okay with with the format, etc, or the draft? I remember there was some discussion on this, but I'm not certain any sort of concensus was ever reached on this topic. :-) Russ -- Current Issues and Status: Issue 1: Use neighbors throughout to describe two adjacent routers running the same protocol, etc. I think Status: I think we have concensus on this. Issue 2: Section 4.1, Is deliberate exposure a threat to a routing system? Status: We have one comment that it is a threat, and no other comments that I've seen. Do I take it that deliberate exposure is a threat to routing? Issue 3: Issue 3: Section 4.5, Is underclaiming a threat to routing systems? Status: I seem to remember Sandy and some others arguing against underclaiming being a threat, while I and others argue for it being a threat. The reasoning on one side appears to be that you can't force a router to advertise anything (?), while on the other side the claim is that this doesn't matter, forcinf information can still cause misrouting to occur, and thus it's a threat. It seems we need some closure on this one. Issue 4: Section 3.1, Splitting masquerading threats from unauthorized threats. Status: I don't think I've seen any concensus here (?). I take the silence on the issue to mean that the compromise text I proposed is okay with everyone, defining them seperately, but using the same term for the two throughout. Issue 5: Is the term blackhole used consistently throughout? Status: The term only appears to used twice in the draft as it is right now, and it appears to be used consistently. I take this as a concensus on this item. Issue 6: Section 4.7 Is overload a legitimate attack against a routing protocol? Status: Thus far, we have Jeff, Jean-Jacques, and I arguing against it being a threat, and Alex A arguing it is a threat. What's the concensus on this one? I'm inclined to all it not a threat based on the current arguments. Issue 7: Ownership as a term.... Is ownership the right term to use? Status: I think we've reached concensus on this one, with "owner" being the acceptable term, as long as it is defined at the beginnig of the doc. Issue 8: In the abstract, there's an awkwardly worded sentence: Status: I take the following as a concensus change: > That's fine or just change "the network operations" to either "the > network's operations" or "network operations". This would work as well.... > ps. In your message about "Comments on Section1, Introduction" you > proposed text starting with: > > "While its well known that bad, incomplete, or poor implementations of > routing protocols may, in themselves, lead to routing problems or..." > > That "its" should be "it's". I didn't bother then but we're on the > grammatical side so I bring it up. I like that stuff. -T Issue 9: Use words rather than numbers for references. Status: I assume we have concensus on this. Issue 10: Section 3.1.2.1 Threat Consequence Zone Status: I've seen no discussion on this issue--does everyone else understand this section of the draft completely? __________________________________ riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jul 26 00:02:36 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA09732 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 00:02:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gGG2-0002re-Hf for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 00:02:10 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6Q428bK011004 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 00:02:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gGFz-0002rP-Sd for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 00:02:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA09692 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 00:02:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gGFx-00029N-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 00:02:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gGFw-00029K-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 00:02:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gGFu-0002qH-9c; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 00:02:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gGEz-0002mD-Ix for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 00:01:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA09611 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 00:00:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gGEx-00027u-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 00:01:03 -0400 Received: from kc-msxproto1.kc.umkc.edu ([134.193.143.167]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gGEw-00027r-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 00:01:02 -0400 Received: from sarah ([65.27.6.64]) by kc-msxproto1.kc.umkc.edu with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Fri, 25 Jul 2003 23:00:56 -0500 Reply-To: From: "Dijiang Huang" To: "Russ White" , "Routing Protocols Security Working Group" Subject: RE: [RPSEC] Threats Draft Issues: Where we Stand? Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:57:38 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jul 2003 04:00:56.0914 (UTC) FILETIME=[8441C320:01C3532A] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Issue 6: Section 4.7 Is overload a legitimate attack against a routing > protocol? > > Status: Thus far, we have Jeff, Jean-Jacques, and I arguing against it > being a threat, and Alex A arguing it is a threat. What's the concensus on > this one? I'm inclined to all it not a threat based on the current > arguments. I think we should leave the overload to control plane. This based on several facts. 1. The threat draft is not only for TCP/IP type based routing protocols. Some routing protocol may have separate channels to take only routing traffic. 2. Even based on TCP/IP protocol stack and in-band routing, when the "data" is destine to the port used by routing process, the router will consider the "data" is routing data. Since I think the router will forward the "data" to the routing process. 3. Moreover, I am thinking good protocol design will help to minimize the effect of control plane based overloading. For example, a routing protocol is lack of authentication protection. The overloaded traffic might be amplified due to flooding. Thus, when you designing a routing protocol, you should be cautious, how strong/complicated the authentication scheme is, and what kind of routing scheme is used, such as flooding/selective flooding. Although you might not totally prevent the overload attack, you could decrease the overloading effect of overall routing domain. Based on these facts, I think the overload should be there in the control plane level. Dijiang _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jul 26 06:55:38 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA03297 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 06:55:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gMhl-0006xN-N7 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 06:55:14 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6QAtDXn026742 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 06:55:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gMhl-0006xF-EW for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 06:55:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA03276 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 06:55:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gMhh-00079z-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 06:55:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gMhg-00079w-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 06:55:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gMhZ-0006vp-85; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 06:55:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gMgr-0006v0-8l for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 06:54:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA03255 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 06:54:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gMgn-000793-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 06:54:13 -0400 Received: from herculanum.int-evry.fr ([157.159.11.15]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gMgm-00078J-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 06:54:12 -0400 Received: from sparte.int-evry.fr (spartebis.int-evry.fr [157.159.10.20]) by herculanum.int-evry.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DBA833A49; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 12:53:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from alpes.int-evry.fr (alpes.int-evry.fr [157.159.10.19]) by spartebis.int-evry.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 2C4EF3F478; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 12:54:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from sparte.int-evry.fr ([157.159.10.11]) by alpes.int-evry.fr (SAVSMTP 3.0.0.44) with SMTP id M2003072612534204945 ; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 12:53:42 +0200 Received: from localhost (ivan.int-evry.fr [157.159.100.48]) by sparte.int-evry.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC9543F478; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 12:54:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from jjp by localhost with local id 19gMg9-0000lA-00; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 12:53:33 +0200 Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 12:53:33 +0200 From: Jean-Jacques Puig To: Alex Audu Cc: rpsec@ietf.org Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Re: Threats Draft Issue 6: Section 4.7 Overload Message-ID: <20030726105333.GA17773@ivan.int-evry.fr> References: <20030721093219.B1126@nexthop.com> <20030724135501.GC17957@ivan.int-evry.fr> <3F217C07.15160537@alcatel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F217C07.15160537@alcatel.com> Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 01:50:47PM -0500, Alex Audu wrote: > The fact that you can indirectly attack the control by attacking the data > plane > doesn't lessen the ramification that it could be a threat to routing > functions. I think > this should be mentioned in the threat document. Regarding the overloading threat section, I rally myself to this position (extracted from the draft): This section combines overload of the control plane and the data plane (the control and data plane of the router, I presume, i.e., the routing protocol messages and the data traffic, not the control and data plane of the routing protocol itself as discussed in section 2.1). This, in order to state about which definition of the data plane we're dealing with in this discussion. The routing protocol (rp) design may help against the overload of the rp's data plane part. But I do not see how it may prevent routing device data plane overload (unless you insert in your routing protocol mesg to negociate bandwith allocation between peers for the rp itself; but this is the responsibility of another protocol IMO) I think we should focus (in this draft) on direct attacks against the rp. I certainly agree that data plane overload threatens the routing functions, but so does switching off the power supply of the device, or cutting the fiber or hitting the device with a bat. BUT I agree overload is a threat against routing functions and I agree this kind of threats should be documented somewhere. Yet this draft is , IMHO, not the appropriate place, and that's why I talked about the possibility of having a document dealing with the security of routing devices. > Designers should be able to refer to the threat document to help them > develop > more threat-safe routing devices. This is the whole pb: I don't think the threat document has the purpose of helping in the development of devices, but of allowing proper evaluation of current routing protocols and good design of future ones. Because I wasn't sure about it, I had a look at the WG charter and felt a bit confused: It introduces the need for documented routing security requirements (which includes both our point of view), states the scope is router-to-router protocols and that the document should benefit for routing protocol designers, and eventually enounces task of the WG is firstly to document threat models for routing systems. As I'm not native English speaker, may be I misunderstood here. As a conclusion, may be we should address the requirements for: A threats document related to routing protocols A threats document related to routing devices / systems If needed, such documents may get merged in a single at the last minute. Does the WG think it would be suitable ? > > One benefit of separating Control and Data planes is that it may afford the > control plane somewhat of an isolated castle that could be more easily > shielded from outside attacks. One could do things like having separate > streams for data and control between control and forwarding planes. Also, > rate limiting could be used to improve > safety. I can only agree here, though I don't think it is directly related to the intrinsec security of the rp. -- Jean-Jacques Puig [homepage] http://www-lor.int-evry.fr/~puig/ _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 27 23:05:49 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA03429 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:05:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gyKC-00014M-IJ for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:05:24 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6S35O5D004104 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:05:24 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gyKC-000146-4e for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:05:24 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA03410 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:05:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gyK7-0003Ab-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:05:19 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gyK7-0003AX-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:05:19 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gyJp-00011W-H3; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:05:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gyIu-0000zP-UZ for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:04:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA03367 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:03:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gyIq-00039x-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:04:01 -0400 Received: from dns.nexthop.com ([65.247.36.216] helo=presque.nexthop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gyIq-00039W-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:04:00 -0400 Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.nexthop.com (8.12.9/8.11.1) id h6S33HdJ028247; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:03:17 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [65.247.36.31]) by presque.nexthop.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h6S33AHr028240; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:03:10 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id h6S335s05264; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:03:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:03:05 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas To: Russ White Cc: Routing Protocols Security Working Group Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Re: Threats Draft Issue 6: Section 4.7 Overload Message-ID: <20030727230305.B5186@nexthop.com> References: <20030721093219.B1126@nexthop.com> <20030724135501.GC17957@ivan.int-evry.fr> <3F217C07.15160537@alcatel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from ruwhite@cisco.com on Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 09:59:10PM -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 09:59:10PM -0400, Russ White wrote: > I tend to diagree--this is at a lower layer, and we shouldn'tneed to > mention every possible lower layer attack. Mostly, this is just a specific form of DoS attack. It is very casually worth mentioning because an implementor may choose to put some form of QoS into their data plane to guarantee that control traffic makes it through. > For instance, gaining access to > the console can also get you into a position to attack the routing system, > but I'm not certain we should include that in the threat analysis. One can be done remotely, the other one cannot. And no, sending in a ninja death squad to attack the actual hardware doesn't count as a legitimately documentable threat. > I don't think the conclusion that separating the data plane from the > control plane is much help in preventing port flooding attacks. The router > still has to receive packets in order to run a routing protocol; seperating > the data plane from the control plane isn't going to stop an attacker from > attacking thosse ports open for a router to receive packets. As I'm sure you're aware, NOC's often keep an administrative ethernet segment that is not on the forwarding plane of customer traffic. This means that their customer links can be utterly saturated and otherwise unusable and yet the box may be administered through this backdoor. Control traffic could in some sense be done in a similar fashion. The main thing that keeps us from doing this is the need to tightly bind the circuit and the state of that circuit into the routing state. A mechanism of some form that allowed a circuit of some form to be partitioned such that it had guaranteed bandwidth for control traffic would remove, or at least distance, the control plane from a "data plane" DoS. > Seperating the data and control plane is a good characteristic in many > situations, but as a method to provide security, I'm not certain it > actually helps anything (?). I forget - exactly how did we choose to document DoS cases in the document? If all DoS is out of scope, then this is certainly out of scope. If not, it is worth considering - but not spending a serious amount of time on. To do so would tread very closely on implementation details. -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 28 10:14:17 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA02580 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:14:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19h8l5-0007Cr-H9 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:13:51 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6SEDpSw027700 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:13:51 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19h8l5-0007Ch-A2 for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:13:51 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA02519 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:13:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19h8l2-0002ji-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:13:48 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19h8l1-0002je-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:13:47 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19h8kG-00076p-Sy; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:13:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19h8jV-00075v-VT for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:12:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA02366 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:12:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19h8jT-0002iX-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:12:11 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19h8jT-0002iF-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:12:11 -0400 Received: from cisco.com (64.102.124.12) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Jul 2003 07:11:40 -0700 Received: from cisco.com (uzura.cisco.com [64.102.17.77]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h6SEBcMK016653; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:11:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from russpc.nc.rr.com (rtp-vpn1-551.cisco.com [10.82.226.39]) by cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA26652; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:11:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:11:37 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) From: Russ White Reply-To: Russ White To: Jean-Jacques Puig cc: Alex Audu , rpsec@ietf.org Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Re: Threats Draft Issue 6: Section 4.7 Overload In-Reply-To: <20030726105333.GA17773@ivan.int-evry.fr> Message-ID: References: <20030721093219.B1126@nexthop.com> <20030724135501.GC17957@ivan.int-evry.fr> <3F217C07.15160537@alcatel.com> <20030726105333.GA17773@ivan.int-evry.fr> X-X-Sender: ruwhite@uzura.cisco.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > BUT I agree overload is a threat against routing functions and I agree > this kind of threats should be documented somewhere. Yet this draft is , > IMHO, not the appropriate place, and that's why I talked about the > possibility of having a document dealing with the security of routing > devices. Right.... The issue, to me, is not whether or not this is a legitimate threat against the routing system, but rather we should include this sort of a threat here? I think Jeff has argued for mentioning it, but not going into great detail. There may be some value in having a section where we mention things like this, but don't go into detail. It would be analogous to the sections in the BGP attack tree that talk about things "outside" the actual attack tree as possible attacks, but it's not an actual attack that this specific document goes into detail on. :-) Russ __________________________________ riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 28 10:24:09 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03075 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:24:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19h8ud-0007dG-O8 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:23:43 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6SENh6k029332 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:23:43 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19h8ud-0007d1-Ju for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:23:43 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03051 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:23:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19h8ub-0002pY-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:23:41 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19h8ua-0002pV-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:23:40 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19h8tw-0007Xc-DY; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:23:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19h8tB-0007Rz-JT for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:22:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA02973 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:22:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19h8t9-0002o5-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:22:11 -0400 Received: from dns.nexthop.com ([65.247.36.216] helo=presque.nexthop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19h8t8-0002nW-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:22:10 -0400 Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.nexthop.com (8.12.9/8.11.1) id h6SELUrc041346; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:21:30 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [65.247.36.31]) by presque.nexthop.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h6SELPHr041339; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:21:25 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id h6SELKo07418; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:21:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:21:20 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas To: Russ White Cc: rpsec@ietf.org Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Re: Threats Draft Issue 6: Section 4.7 Overload Message-ID: <20030728102120.A7361@nexthop.com> References: <20030721093219.B1126@nexthop.com> <20030724135501.GC17957@ivan.int-evry.fr> <3F217C07.15160537@alcatel.com> <20030726105333.GA17773@ivan.int-evry.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from ruwhite@cisco.com on Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 10:11:37AM -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 10:11:37AM -0400, Russ White wrote: > I think Jeff has argued for mentioning it, but not going into great detail. Basically: "Denial of service and resource starvation are two attacks against a routing system. Unless the mechanisms used in these attacks are capable of being dealt with by changes to the protocol, such attacks are outside the scope of this document." -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 28 10:31:12 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03266 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:31:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19h90R-0007sZ-52 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:29:43 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6SETh9h030283 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:29:43 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19h90R-0007sM-0m for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:29:43 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03213 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:29:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19h90O-0002si-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:29:40 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19h90O-0002sf-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:29:40 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19h8zl-0007mP-5q; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:29:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19h8z8-0007m3-9e for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:28:22 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03191 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:28:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19h8z4-0002s0-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:28:18 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-2-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.71] helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19h8z4-0002rr-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:28:18 -0400 Received: from cisco.com (64.102.124.12) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Jul 2003 07:30:11 -0700 Received: from cisco.com (uzura.cisco.com [64.102.17.77]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h6SERiMK020075; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:27:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from russpc.nc.rr.com (rtp-vpn1-551.cisco.com [10.82.226.39]) by cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA27903; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:27:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:27:44 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) From: Russ White Reply-To: Russ White To: Jeffrey Haas cc: rpsec@ietf.org Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Re: Threats Draft Issue 6: Section 4.7 Overload In-Reply-To: <20030728102120.A7361@nexthop.com> Message-ID: References: <20030721093219.B1126@nexthop.com> <20030724135501.GC17957@ivan.int-evry.fr> <3F217C07.15160537@alcatel.com> <20030726105333.GA17773@ivan.int-evry.fr> <20030728102120.A7361@nexthop.com> X-X-Sender: ruwhite@uzura.cisco.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , This sounds fine to me.... :-) Russ On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 10:11:37AM -0400, Russ White wrote: > > I think Jeff has argued for mentioning it, but not going into great detail. > > Basically: > "Denial of service and resource starvation are two attacks against > a routing system. Unless the mechanisms used in these attacks > are capable of being dealt with by changes to the protocol, such > attacks are outside the scope of this document." > > -- > Jeff Haas > NextHop Technologies > __________________________________ riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 28 10:44:09 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03581 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:44:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19h9E0-0000D9-A4 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:43:44 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6SEhiEo000805 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:43:44 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19h9E0-0000Cu-6u for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:43:44 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03569 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:43:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19h9Dx-00030k-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:43:41 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19h9Dx-00030h-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:43:41 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19h9DI-00008x-5Z; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:43:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19h9Cf-0008WA-P3 for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:42:21 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03487 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:42:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19h9Cd-0002zP-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:42:19 -0400 Received: from herculanum.int-evry.fr ([157.159.11.15]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19h9Cc-0002zA-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:42:18 -0400 Received: from sparte.int-evry.fr (spartebis.int-evry.fr [157.159.10.20]) by herculanum.int-evry.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BC4233A83 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:41:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from alpes.int-evry.fr (alpes.int-evry.fr [157.159.10.19]) by spartebis.int-evry.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id F1CDC3F469 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:42:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from sparte.int-evry.fr ([157.159.10.11]) by alpes.int-evry.fr (SAVSMTP 3.0.0.44) with SMTP id M2003072816413229449 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:41:32 +0200 Received: from localhost (ivan.int-evry.fr [157.159.100.48]) by sparte.int-evry.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1FA33F427 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:42:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from jjp by localhost with local id 19h9Ba-0001A5-00 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:41:14 +0200 Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:41:14 +0200 From: Jean-Jacques Puig To: rpsec@ietf.org Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Re: Threats Draft Issue 6: Section 4.7 Overload Message-ID: <20030728144114.GA4440@ivan.int-evry.fr> Mail-Followup-To: rpsec@ietf.org References: <20030721093219.B1126@nexthop.com> <20030724135501.GC17957@ivan.int-evry.fr> <3F217C07.15160537@alcatel.com> <20030726105333.GA17773@ivan.int-evry.fr> <20030728102120.A7361@nexthop.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 10:27:44AM -0400, Russ White wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 10:11:37AM -0400, Russ White wrote: > > > I think Jeff has argued for mentioning it, but not going into great detail. > > > > Basically: > > "Denial of service and resource starvation are two attacks against > > a routing system. Unless the mechanisms used in these attacks > > are capable of being dealt with by changes to the protocol, such > > attacks are outside the scope of this document." Ok for me: this is a clear statement of that it is both a threat and outside the scope of the doc. -- Jean-Jacques Puig [homepage] http://www-lor.int-evry.fr/~puig/ _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 28 11:32:41 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07508 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:32:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19h9yu-0002d1-69 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:32:13 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6SFWC9Z010099 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:32:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19h9yu-0002co-35 for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:32:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07472 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:32:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19h9yt-0004Bg-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:32:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19h9ys-0004Bd-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:32:10 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19h9yj-0002af-OW; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:32:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19h9xz-0002Y6-Ux for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:31:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07373 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:31:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19h9xx-00049P-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:31:13 -0400 Received: from auds952.usa.alcatel.com ([143.209.238.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19h9xw-00048a-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:31:12 -0400 Received: from alcatel.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by auds952.usa.alcatel.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h6SFUVB3024139; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:30:31 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <3F254197.A40CF71C@alcatel.com> Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:30:31 -0500 From: Alex Audu Reply-To: alex.audu@alcatel.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Russ White CC: Jean-Jacques Puig , Jeffrey Haas , Routing Protocols Security Working Group Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Re: Threats Draft Issue 6: Section 4.7 Overload References: <20030721093219.B1126@nexthop.com> <20030724135501.GC17957@ivan.int-evry.fr> <3F217C07.15160537@alcatel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Russ, I am not sure if the console is a core part of a routing device. So,..stretching that argument to include a console is a big stretch. One way to attack the routing protocol is to slow it down by starving it of processing cycles. If the forwarding and control functions are being handled by the same processor, then the control can be directly affected by flooding the ports with data. Separating the control decouples the procesing cycles,..and improves the survivability of the control. How effective that is depends on the design. Regards, Alex. Russ White wrote: > > The fact that you can indirectly attack the control by attacking the data > > plane doesn't lessen the ramification that it could be a threat to > > routing functions. I think this should be mentioned in the threat > > document. > > > > Designers should be able to refer to the threat document to help them > > develop more threat-safe routing devices. > > I tend to diagree--this is at a lower layer, and we shouldn'tneed to > mention every possible lower layer attack. For instance, gaining access to > the console can also get you into a position to attack the routing system, > but I'm not certain we should include that in the threat analysis. > > > One benefit of separating Control and Data planes is that it may afford > > the control plane somewhat of an isolated castle that could be more > > easily shielded from outside attacks. One could do things like having > > separate streams for data and control between control and forwarding > > planes. Also, rate limiting could be used to improve safety. > > I don't think the conclusion that separating the data plane from the > control plane is much help in preventing port flooding attacks. The router > still has to receive packets in order to run a routing protocol; seperating > the data plane from the control plane isn't going to stop an attacker from > attacking thosse ports open for a router to receive packets. > > Seperating the data and control plane is a good characteristic in many > situations, but as a method to provide security, I'm not certain it > actually helps anything (?). > > :-) > > Russ > > __________________________________ > riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 28 12:29:38 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA11507 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:29:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hAs4-0005GJ-Te for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:29:12 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6SGTC6O020221 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:29:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hAs4-0005G4-QY for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:29:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA11445 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:29:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hAs3-0005Sz-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:29:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hAs2-0005Su-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:29:10 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hArs-0005Bi-JR; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:29:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hArB-00058c-Sp for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:28:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA11350 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:28:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hApD-0005RR-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:26:15 -0400 Received: from auds953.usa.alcatel.com ([143.209.238.6]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hApC-0005RE-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:26:14 -0400 Received: from alcatel.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by auds953.usa.alcatel.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h6SGPXLX025498; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:25:33 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <3F254E7C.6CC44D6E@alcatel.com> Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:25:32 -0500 From: Alex Audu Reply-To: alex.audu@alcatel.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jean-Jacques Puig CC: rpsec@ietf.org Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Re: Threats Draft Issue 6: Section 4.7 Overload References: <20030721093219.B1126@nexthop.com> <20030724135501.GC17957@ivan.int-evry.fr> <3F217C07.15160537@alcatel.com> <20030726105333.GA17773@ivan.int-evry.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Jean-Jacques, I guess you are right about the fact that overload attacks may not reflect accurately on the level of security inherent in the routing protocol. But I believe the job of the WG is to document the threats that contribute to the problem space. Then let the designers take this document as input and worry about the solution space for both routing protocol, and the routing device. Regards, Alex. Jean-Jacques Puig wrote: > On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 01:50:47PM -0500, Alex Audu wrote: > > The fact that you can indirectly attack the control by attacking the data > > plane > > doesn't lessen the ramification that it could be a threat to routing > > functions. I think > > this should be mentioned in the threat document. > > Regarding the overloading threat section, I rally myself to this > position (extracted from the draft): > This section combines overload of the control plane and the data > plane (the control and data plane of the router, I presume, i.e., the > routing protocol messages and the data traffic, not the control and > data plane of the routing protocol itself as discussed in section > 2.1). > > This, in order to state about which definition of the data plane we're > dealing with in this discussion. > > The routing protocol (rp) design may help against the overload of the > rp's data plane part. But I do not see how it may prevent routing device > data plane overload (unless you insert in your routing protocol mesg to > negociate bandwith allocation between peers for the rp itself; but this > is the responsibility of another protocol IMO) > > I think we should focus (in this draft) on direct attacks against the > rp. I certainly agree that data plane overload threatens the routing > functions, but so does switching off the power supply of the device, or > cutting the fiber or hitting the device with a bat. > > BUT I agree overload is a threat against routing functions and I agree > this kind of threats should be documented somewhere. Yet this draft is , > IMHO, not the appropriate place, and that's why I talked about the > possibility of having a document dealing with the security of routing > devices. > > > Designers should be able to refer to the threat document to help them > > develop > > more threat-safe routing devices. > > This is the whole pb: I don't think the threat document has the purpose > of helping in the development of devices, but of allowing proper > evaluation of current routing protocols and good design of future ones. > > Because I wasn't sure about it, I had a look at the WG charter and felt > a bit confused: It introduces the need for documented routing security > requirements (which includes both our point of view), states the scope > is router-to-router protocols and that the document should benefit for > routing protocol designers, and eventually enounces task of the WG is > firstly to document threat models for routing systems. As I'm not native > English speaker, may be I misunderstood here. > > As a conclusion, may be we should address the requirements for: > > A threats document related to routing protocols > A threats document related to routing devices / systems > > If needed, such documents may get merged in a single at the last minute. > > Does the WG think it would be suitable ? > > > > > One benefit of separating Control and Data planes is that it may afford the > > control plane somewhat of an isolated castle that could be more easily > > shielded from outside attacks. One could do things like having separate > > streams for data and control between control and forwarding planes. Also, > > rate limiting could be used to improve > > safety. > > I can only agree here, though I don't think it is directly related to > the intrinsec security of the rp. > > -- > Jean-Jacques Puig > > [homepage] http://www-lor.int-evry.fr/~puig/ _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 28 12:47:09 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA11986 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:47:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hB90-00063i-Cr for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:46:43 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6SGkgaQ023284 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:46:42 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hB90-00063T-9X for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:46:42 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA11983 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:46:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hB8y-0005a2-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:46:40 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hB8x-0005Zz-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:46:39 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hB8L-000626-HX; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:46:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hB7N-00060v-23 for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:45:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA11963 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:44:56 -0400 (EDT) From: ram.gopal@nokia.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hB7L-0005Zh-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:44:59 -0400 Received: from [63.78.179.217] (helo=mgw-dax2.ext.nokia.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hB7K-0005ZX-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:44:58 -0400 Received: from davir02nok.americas.nokia.com (davir02nok.americas.nokia.com [172.18.242.85]) by mgw-dax2.ext.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h6SGisG13159 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:44:54 -0500 (CDT) Received: from daebh001.NOE.Nokia.com (unverified) by davir02nok.americas.nokia.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with ESMTP id ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:44:53 -0500 Received: from bsebe001.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.19.160.13]) by daebh001.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6139); Mon, 28 Jul 2003 09:44:42 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6375.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [RPSEC] Re: Threats Draft Issue 6: Section 4.7 Overload Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:44:41 -0400 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [RPSEC] Re: Threats Draft Issue 6: Section 4.7 Overload Thread-Index: AcNVEnKxGEQluCueSh+f2i0++ZsZgAAFIxcQ To: , Cc: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Jul 2003 16:44:42.0873 (UTC) FILETIME=[8B7BAE90:01C35527] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Comments are inline > -----Original Message----- > From: ext Russ White [mailto:ruwhite@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 10:12 AM > To: Jean-Jacques Puig > Cc: Alex Audu; rpsec@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Re: Threats Draft Issue 6: Section 4.7 Overload >=20 >=20 >=20 > > BUT I agree overload is a threat against routing functions=20 > and I agree > > this kind of threats should be documented somewhere. Yet=20 > this draft is , > > IMHO, not the appropriate place, and that's why I talked about the > > possibility of having a document dealing with the security=20 > of routing > > devices. >=20 > Right.... The issue, to me, is not whether or not this is a legitimate > threat against the routing system, but rather we should=20 > include this sort > of a threat here? >=20 > I think Jeff has argued for mentioning it, but not going into=20 > great detail. > There may be some value in having a section where we mention=20 > things like > this, but don't go into detail. It would be analogous to the=20 > sections in > the BGP attack tree that talk about things "outside" the=20 > actual attack tree > as possible attacks, but it's not an actual attack that this specific > document goes into detail on. =20 Yes, when we analyse the threats against the routing functions we may = come across threats that may compromise the routing platform itself. We should document at = least highlight those detail without going into details. regards Ramg=20 _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 28 13:11:40 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA12999 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:11:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hBWk-00074R-Mi for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:11:15 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6SHBEsu027175 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:11:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hBWk-00074E-IZ for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:11:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA12891 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:11:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hBWi-0005pD-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:11:12 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hBWh-0005pA-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:11:11 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hBWY-00070g-2E; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:11:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hBVa-000705-6w for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:10:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA12859 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:09:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hBVY-0005oO-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:10:00 -0400 Received: from law10-oe66.law10.hotmail.com ([64.4.14.201] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hBVX-0005nN-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:09:59 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:09:28 -0700 Received: from 67.81.210.146 by law10-oe66.law10.hotmail.com with DAV; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 17:09:28 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [67.81.210.146] X-Originating-Email: [piyush_bhatnagar@hotmail.com] From: "Piyush Bhatnagar" To: , , Cc: , References: Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Re: Threats Draft Issue 6: Section 4.7 Overload Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:09:36 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Jul 2003 17:09:28.0924 (UTC) FILETIME=[013D11C0:01C3552B] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well, I may agree that this is not the appropriate place for discussion/documentation of threats that compromise the routing platform, but such threats can have a much more damaging effect. So we should try and document such threats as well either in this doc or in another doc addressing threats that can compromise the routing platform itself. - Regards, Piyush ========================== Piyush Bhatnagar, CISSP piyush_bhatnagar@hotmail.com ========================== ----- Original Message ----- From: To: ; Cc: ; Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 12:44 PM Subject: RE: [RPSEC] Re: Threats Draft Issue 6: Section 4.7 Overload Comments are inline > -----Original Message----- > From: ext Russ White [mailto:ruwhite@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 10:12 AM > To: Jean-Jacques Puig > Cc: Alex Audu; rpsec@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Re: Threats Draft Issue 6: Section 4.7 Overload > > > > > BUT I agree overload is a threat against routing functions > and I agree > > this kind of threats should be documented somewhere. Yet > this draft is , > > IMHO, not the appropriate place, and that's why I talked about the > > possibility of having a document dealing with the security > of routing > > devices. > > Right.... The issue, to me, is not whether or not this is a legitimate > threat against the routing system, but rather we should > include this sort > of a threat here? > > I think Jeff has argued for mentioning it, but not going into > great detail. > There may be some value in having a section where we mention > things like > this, but don't go into detail. It would be analogous to the > sections in > the BGP attack tree that talk about things "outside" the > actual attack tree > as possible attacks, but it's not an actual attack that this specific > document goes into detail on. Yes, when we analyse the threats against the routing functions we may come across threats that may compromise the routing platform itself. We should document at least highlight those detail without going into details. regards Ramg _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 28 13:31:40 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAB13533 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:31:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hBq5-0007aK-63 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:31:13 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6SHVDcq029150 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:31:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hBq5-0007a5-31 for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:31:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA13512 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:31:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hBq3-00060L-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:31:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hBq2-00060I-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:31:10 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hBpt-0007Y9-Rf; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:31:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hBpe-0007XZ-TC for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:30:46 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA13479 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:30:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hBpc-000601-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:30:44 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-2-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.71] helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hBpc-0005zk-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:30:44 -0400 Received: from cisco.com (64.102.124.12) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Jul 2003 10:32:39 -0700 Received: from cisco.com (uzura.cisco.com [64.102.17.77]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h6SHUBMK029202 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:30:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from russpc.nc.rr.com (rtp-vpn1-551.cisco.com [10.82.226.39]) by cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA12679 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:30:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:30:11 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) From: Russ White Reply-To: Russ White To: Routing Protocols Security Working Group Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Re: Threats Draft Issue 6: Section 4.7 Overload In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20030721093219.B1126@nexthop.com> <20030724135501.GC17957@ivan.int-evry.fr> <3F217C07.15160537@alcatel.com> <20030726105333.GA17773@ivan.int-evry.fr> <20030728102120.A7361@nexthop.com> X-X-Sender: ruwhite@uzura.cisco.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , So, could we build concensus around the text that Jeff proposed below? Or does someone object to this, would like to change it, etc? :-) Russ On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Russ White wrote: > > This sounds fine to me.... > > :-) > > Russ > > On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 10:11:37AM -0400, Russ White wrote: > > > I think Jeff has argued for mentioning it, but not going into great detail. > > > > Basically: > > "Denial of service and resource starvation are two attacks against > > a routing system. Unless the mechanisms used in these attacks > > are capable of being dealt with by changes to the protocol, such > > attacks are outside the scope of this document." > > > > -- > > Jeff Haas > > NextHop Technologies > > > > __________________________________ > riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone > > __________________________________ riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 28 14:16:42 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA14861 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:16:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hCXf-0001YW-Ug for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:16:16 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6SIGFa7005974 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:16:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hCXf-0001YH-RT for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:16:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA14847 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:16:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hCXd-0006Od-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:16:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hCXc-0006Oa-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:16:12 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hCXR-0001WL-3K; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:16:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hCWV-0001VB-Uj for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:15:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA14790 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:14:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hCWT-0006Nu-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:15:01 -0400 Received: from brmea-mail-3.sun.com ([192.18.98.34]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hCWR-0006Nh-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:15:00 -0400 Received: from sydney.East.Sun.COM ([129.148.9.16]) by brmea-mail-3.sun.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6SIEu7h015732; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:14:56 -0600 (MDT) Received: from sr1-ubur-05 (sr1-ubur-05 [129.148.9.84]) by sydney.East.Sun.COM (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with SMTP id h6SIEus16556; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:14:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200307281814.h6SIEus16556@sydney.East.Sun.COM> Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:14:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Radia Perlman - Boston Center for Networking Reply-To: Radia Perlman - Boston Center for Networking Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Re: Threats Draft Issue 6: Section 4.7 Overload To: rpsec@ietf.org, riw@cisco.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-MD5: tSoupiuDkCxnqZOO3G0sKg== X-Mailer: dtmail 1.3.0 @(#)CDE Version 1.5.3_06 SunOS 5.9 sun4u sparc Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Someone poked me to comment, and I haven't been following this thread. But it seems, unless I'm misunderstanding the thread based on some samples I've read just now, that my thesis is an existence proof that changes in the routing protocol *can* be a defense against DOS and resource starvation. So the statement: >> Unless the mechanisms used in these attacks > > are capable of being dealt with by changes to the protocol, such > > attacks are outside the scope of this document." seems as though DOS and resource starvation should be in scope. And also, it seems as though if someone can cause resource starvation and prevent packets from being delivered, who cares if the routing protocol is creating correct forwarding tables? Radia From: Russ White So, could we build concensus around the text that Jeff proposed below? Or does someone object to this, would like to change it, etc? :-) Russ On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Russ White wrote: > > This sounds fine to me.... > > :-) > > Russ > > On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 10:11:37AM -0400, Russ White wrote: > > > I think Jeff has argued for mentioning it, but not going into great detail. > > > > Basically: > > "Denial of service and resource starvation are two attacks against > > a routing system. Unless the mechanisms used in these attacks > > are capable of being dealt with by changes to the protocol, such > > attacks are outside the scope of this document." > > > > -- > > Jeff Haas > > NextHop Technologies > > > > __________________________________ > riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone > > __________________________________ riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 29 04:45:54 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA15803 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 04:45:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hQ6r-0002ed-AI for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 04:45:29 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6T8jT8Z010201 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 04:45:29 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hQ6q-0002eS-7C for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 04:45:28 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA15794 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 04:45:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hQ6n-0003Xz-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 04:45:25 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hQ6m-0003Xv-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 04:45:24 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hQ6Q-0002cq-95; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 04:45:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hQ5V-0002c0-8i for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 04:44:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA15766 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 04:43:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hQ5S-0003Xa-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 04:44:02 -0400 Received: from herculanum.int-evry.fr ([157.159.11.15]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hQ5R-0003XW-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 04:44:01 -0400 Received: from sparte.int-evry.fr (spartebis.int-evry.fr [157.159.10.20]) by herculanum.int-evry.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5516534208 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 10:41:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from alpes.int-evry.fr (alpes.int-evry.fr [157.159.10.19]) by spartebis.int-evry.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 394F33F435 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 10:42:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from sparte.int-evry.fr ([157.159.10.11]) by alpes.int-evry.fr (SAVSMTP 3.0.0.44) with SMTP id M2003072910412413939 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 10:41:24 +0200 Received: from localhost (ivan.int-evry.fr [157.159.100.48]) by sparte.int-evry.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB4163F435 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 10:42:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from jjp by localhost with local id 19hQ2X-0008U7-00 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 10:41:01 +0200 Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 10:41:01 +0200 From: Jean-Jacques Puig To: rpsec@ietf.org Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Re: Threats Draft Issue 6: Section 4.7 Overload Message-ID: <20030729084101.GA4496@ivan.int-evry.fr> Mail-Followup-To: rpsec@ietf.org References: <200307281814.h6SIEus16556@sydney.East.Sun.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200307281814.h6SIEus16556@sydney.East.Sun.COM> Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi ! A short comment inline. On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 02:14:56PM -0400, Radia Perlman - Boston Center for Networking wrote: > Someone poked me to comment, and I haven't > been following this thread. But it seems, unless I'm > misunderstanding the thread based on some samples I've read just > now, that my thesis is an existence proof that changes in > the routing protocol *can* be a defense against DOS and > resource starvation. So the statement: > > >> Unless the mechanisms used in these attacks > > > are capable of being dealt with by changes to the protocol, such > > > attacks are outside the scope of this document." > > seems as though DOS and resource starvation should be in scope. Or that, in the end, the statement suffers from a bad formulation: may be a threats document should not make assumptions about what changes in a protocol are capable to deal with or not, and stand to threats description according to the scope. > And also, it seems as though if someone can cause resource starvation > and prevent packets from being delivered, who cares if the routing > protocol is creating correct forwarding tables? Then it makes sense to consider that overloading is a more general threat than a threat against the routing protocol. General threats agains forwarding/routing devices are certainly indirect threats against routing protocols if such a device runs such protocols, but are also indirect threats against resource reservation protocols, management protocols or whatever runs on the device. Thus a standalone doc would provide reference for specific contexts and prevent redundant work. -- Jean-Jacques Puig [homepage] http://www-lor.int-evry.fr/~puig/ _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 31 07:08:50 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA20466 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 07:08:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iBII-0002kZ-Gl for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 07:08:26 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6VB8QEb010567 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 07:08:26 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iBII-0002kM-AG for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 07:08:26 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA20451 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 07:08:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iBIE-0002HN-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 07:08:22 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iBID-0002HJ-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 07:08:21 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iBHt-0002gP-MT; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 07:08:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iBHe-0002fC-SE for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 07:07:46 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA20431 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 07:07:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iBHa-0002Gk-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 07:07:42 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iBHa-0002Gg-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 07:07:42 -0400 Received: from cisco.com (64.102.124.13) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 31 Jul 2003 04:07:14 -0700 Received: from cisco.com (uzura.cisco.com [64.102.17.77]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h6VB7Axc016113; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 07:07:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dhcp-64-102-60-208.cisco.com (dhcp-64-102-60-208.cisco.com [64.102.60.208]) by cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA29770; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 07:07:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 07:08:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Russ White Reply-To: Russ White To: Radia Perlman - Boston Center for Networking cc: rpsec@ietf.org Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Re: Threats Draft Issue 6: Section 4.7 Overload In-Reply-To: <200307281814.h6SIEus16556@sydney.East.Sun.COM> Message-ID: References: <200307281814.h6SIEus16556@sydney.East.Sun.COM> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > Someone poked me to comment, and I haven't been following this thread. > But it seems, unless I'm misunderstanding the thread based on some > samples I've read just now, that my thesis is an existence proof that > changes in the routing protocol *can* be a defense against DOS and > resource starvation. So the statement: Okay--so, if changing the routing protocol can actually prevent DOS attacks against the devices running the routing protocol (not against the network, per se, but against the routers), then we should include it as in scope. But, it might be useful to have some draft that discusses how this is possible. :-) Russ __________________________________ riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 31 07:11:32 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA20562 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 07:11:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iBKt-0002zZ-LZ for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 07:11:07 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6VBB7ho011495 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 07:11:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iBKt-0002zK-Ig for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 07:11:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA20555 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 07:11:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iBKp-0002J6-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 07:11:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iBKo-0002J3-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 07:11:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iBKn-0002vh-3X; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 07:11:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iBJs-0002rV-FT for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 07:10:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA20522 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 07:09:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iBJo-0002IL-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 07:10:00 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-2-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.71] helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iBJn-0002Hq-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 07:09:59 -0400 Received: from cisco.com (64.102.124.12) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 31 Jul 2003 04:12:20 -0700 Received: from cisco.com (uzura.cisco.com [64.102.17.77]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h6VB9CXw002777; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 07:09:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dhcp-64-102-60-208.cisco.com (dhcp-64-102-60-208.cisco.com [64.102.60.208]) by cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA29857; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 07:09:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 07:10:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Russ White Reply-To: Russ White To: Jean-Jacques Puig cc: rpsec@ietf.org Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Re: Threats Draft Issue 6: Section 4.7 Overload In-Reply-To: <20030729084101.GA4496@ivan.int-evry.fr> Message-ID: References: <200307281814.h6SIEus16556@sydney.East.Sun.COM> <20030729084101.GA4496@ivan.int-evry.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > Or that, in the end, the statement suffers from a bad formulation: may be > a threats document should not make assumptions about what changes in a > protocol are capable to deal with or not, and stand to threats > description according to the scope. But you have to make such assumptions, or all threats docs end up covering everything, right? Then there would only be one threat doc in the world, just a really big one... :-) > > And also, it seems as though if someone can cause resource starvation > > and prevent packets from being delivered, who cares if the routing > > protocol is creating correct forwarding tables? > > Then it makes sense to consider that overloading is a more general > threat than a threat against the routing protocol. > > General threats agains forwarding/routing devices are certainly indirect > threats against routing protocols if such a device runs such protocols, > but are also indirect threats against resource reservation protocols, > management protocols or whatever runs on the device. Thus a standalone > doc would provide reference for specific contexts and prevent redundant > work. Yes, so should it be in or out of scope for this doc, and should the wg take on such a doc, since it isn't "rp specific," although it does impact the operation of rp's? :-) Russ __________________________________ riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 31 08:44:01 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA23109 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 08:44:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iCmN-0006mx-6D for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 08:43:35 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6VChZFD026089 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 08:43:35 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iCmN-0006mi-30 for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 08:43:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA23020 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 08:43:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iCmL-0003Bu-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 08:43:33 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iCmK-0003Bg-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 08:43:32 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iClp-0006Zv-69; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 08:43:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iClL-0006Yp-9i for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 08:42:31 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA22986 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 08:42:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iClK-0003BJ-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 08:42:30 -0400 Received: from herculanum.int-evry.fr ([157.159.11.15]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iClJ-0003B8-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 08:42:29 -0400 Received: from sparte.int-evry.fr (spartebis.int-evry.fr [157.159.10.20]) by herculanum.int-evry.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3279339BE for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:41:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from alpes.int-evry.fr (alpes.int-evry.fr [157.159.10.19]) by spartebis.int-evry.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id CCA193F40C for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:44:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from sparte.int-evry.fr ([157.159.10.11]) by alpes.int-evry.fr (SAVSMTP 3.0.0.44) with SMTP id M2003073114415602502 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:41:56 +0200 Received: from localhost (ivan.int-evry.fr [157.159.100.48]) by sparte.int-evry.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABBFC3F40C for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:44:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from jjp by localhost with local id 19iCkG-0002B2-00 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:41:24 +0200 Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:41:24 +0200 From: Jean-Jacques Puig To: rpsec@ietf.org Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Re: Threats Draft Issue 6: Section 4.7 Overload Message-ID: <20030731124124.GA18350@ivan.int-evry.fr> Mail-Followup-To: rpsec@ietf.org References: <200307281814.h6SIEus16556@sydney.East.Sun.COM> <20030729084101.GA4496@ivan.int-evry.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 07:10:06AM -0400, Russ White wrote: > > > Or that, in the end, the statement suffers from a bad formulation: may be > > a threats document should not make assumptions about what changes in a > > protocol are capable to deal with or not, and stand to threats > > description according to the scope. > > But you have to make such assumptions, or all threats docs end up covering > everything, right? Then there would only be one threat doc in the world, > just a really big one... :-) I meant that foreseeing solutions to a problem should not influence the statement of the problem itself. Saying: ''Unless the mechanisms used in these attacks are capable of being dealt with by changes to the protocol, such attacks are outside the scope of this document.'' may result in rejecting a pb because we are currently unaware of a solution through changes to the protocol. It seems that we have a (bad) natural propensity for evaluating pbs in terms of solutions. It is sometimes (rarely) possible to proove that no solution can solve a specific pb; nevertheless, this does not imply that the pb should not be stated clearly: monitoring occurences of the pb may provide a place for forensic analysis and legal (prosecutions) 'post-solutions'. > > > > And also, it seems as though if someone can cause resource starvation > > > and prevent packets from being delivered, who cares if the routing > > > protocol is creating correct forwarding tables? > > > > Then it makes sense to consider that overloading is a more general > > threat than a threat against the routing protocol. > > > > General threats agains forwarding/routing devices are certainly indirect > > threats against routing protocols if such a device runs such protocols, > > but are also indirect threats against resource reservation protocols, > > management protocols or whatever runs on the device. Thus a standalone > > doc would provide reference for specific contexts and prevent redundant > > work. > > Yes, so should it be in or out of scope for this doc, and should the wg > take on such a doc, since it isn't "rp specific," although it does impact > the operation of rp's? If no-one is interested in having a general threats document, then these threats having consequences on rp operations, they should be mentionned in the rp threats doc. If we set for a general threats document, then the rp threats doc should mention that general threats have already been presented in the general threats doc. This may be considered as a modularity issue. Of course the WG can take on such a doc. And so can ANY WG effort focusing on a threat analysis possibly including such threats. The question is: which will do it first ? I think we can: current draft provides already some content (this was the whole issue of this thread wasn't it ?). -- Jean-Jacques Puig [homepage] http://www-lor.int-evry.fr/~puig/ _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 31 09:38:37 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA25144 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 09:38:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iDdD-0000Mw-48 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 09:38:11 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6VDcBvI001412 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 09:38:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iDdD-0000Mh-14 for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 09:38:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA25085 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 09:38:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iDdB-0003mn-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 09:38:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iDdA-0003mk-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 09:38:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iDd3-0000J4-CO; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 09:38:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iDcW-0000Bn-SP for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 09:37:28 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA24973 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 09:37:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iDcV-0003lD-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 09:37:27 -0400 Received: from herculanum.int-evry.fr ([157.159.11.15]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iDcU-0003jb-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 09:37:26 -0400 Received: from sparte.int-evry.fr (spartebis.int-evry.fr [157.159.10.20]) by herculanum.int-evry.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 204FA33AAF for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:36:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from alpes.int-evry.fr (alpes.int-evry.fr [157.159.10.19]) by spartebis.int-evry.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id C56513F40C for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:39:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from sparte.int-evry.fr ([157.159.10.11]) by alpes.int-evry.fr (SAVSMTP 3.0.0.44) with SMTP id M2003073115365620652 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:36:56 +0200 Received: from localhost (ivan.int-evry.fr [157.159.100.48]) by sparte.int-evry.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id A228E3F40C for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:39:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from jjp by localhost with local id 19iDbT-0002J5-00 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:36:23 +0200 Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:36:23 +0200 From: Jean-Jacques Puig To: Routing Protocols Security Working Group Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Question on Section 3.1.2.1 Message-ID: <20030731133623.GA8457@ivan.int-evry.fr> Mail-Followup-To: Routing Protocols Security Working Group References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 11:13:53PM -0400, Russ White wrote: > > 3.1.2.1 Threat Consequence Zone > > A threat consequence zone covers an area within which the network > operations have been affected by the threat consequences. > > I've never understood the consequences of a threat Threat consequence definition comes from RFC 2828. Though IRL threats MAY have consequences (blackmail), I think the original intent here was threat action consequence, but we will have to cope with current terminology. > --do you mean the > area within which network operation has been affected by the > consequences of an attack? It seems to me what you're trying to say is > the zone where network operations would be impacted by an attack if a > given threat were exploited? May I state it this way: 3.1.2.1 Threat Consequence Zone A threat consequence zone covers the area within which the network operations have been affected by threat actions. -- Jean-Jacques Puig [homepage] http://www-lor.int-evry.fr/~puig/ _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 31 14:32:14 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07444 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:32:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iIDM-0007Hu-Kd for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:31:48 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6VIVmOg028008 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:31:48 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iIDM-0007Hf-GS for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:31:48 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07398 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:31:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iIDJ-0006Py-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:31:45 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iIDJ-0006Pv-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:31:45 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iICc-00076b-GA; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:31:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iIBr-00074z-Vx for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:30:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07357 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:30:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iIBp-0006P7-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:30:13 -0400 Received: from auds953.usa.alcatel.com ([143.209.238.6]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iIBo-0006Os-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:30:12 -0400 Received: from alcatel.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by auds953.usa.alcatel.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h6VITXLX010277; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:29:33 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <3F29600C.C53D2291@alcatel.com> Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:29:33 -0500 From: Alex Audu Reply-To: alex.audu@alcatel.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Russ White CC: Routing Protocols Security Working Group Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Section 3.1.1 Comments References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The recommended change is good. I'd leave the MANET example in also since it doesn't hurt. Regards, Alex. Russ White wrote: > I think I originally asked this: > > Replace this: > > neighbor. For example, in OSPF (that is, before the MD5 part was > added), OSPF speaks to all routers on the local link that answer to > the AllSPFRouters multicast address. Furthermore, MANET protocols > frequently speak over the broadcast link. > > with: > > For example, an OSPF router will form a peering relationship with any > attached device which appears to be running OSPF, unless MD5 > authentication (or some other means) is used to prevent the peering > relationship from forming. > > I'd pull the manet example, one is enough here, and reference the OSPF > MD5 draft. > > -- > > Did we reach a concensus on this? > > :-) > > Russ > > __________________________________ > riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone > > _______________________________________________ > RPSEC mailing list > RPSEC@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 31 14:40:03 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07736 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:40:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iIKv-0007yt-Lp for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:39:37 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6VIdbp3030678 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:39:37 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iIKv-0007yj-J6 for rpsec-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:39:37 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07725 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:39:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iIKs-0006TX-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:39:34 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iIKs-0006TU-00 for rpsec-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:39:34 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iIKL-0007v9-4D; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:39:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iIKF-0007uy-JB for rpsec@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:38:55 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07706 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:38:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iIKC-0006Sz-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:38:52 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.70] helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iIKC-0006Sv-00 for rpsec@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:38:52 -0400 Received: from cisco.com (uzura.cisco.com [64.102.17.77]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h6VIcKxc005169 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:38:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from russpc.nc.rr.com (rtp-vpn1-3.cisco.com [10.82.224.3]) by cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA29776 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:38:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:38:19 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) From: Russ White Reply-To: Russ White To: Routing Protocols Security Working Group Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Section 3.1.1 Comments In-Reply-To: <3F29600C.C53D2291@alcatel.com> Message-ID: References: <3F29600C.C53D2291@alcatel.com> X-X-Sender: ruwhite@uzura.cisco.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , I think we have concensus on this one? :-) Russ On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Alex Audu wrote: > The recommended change is good. I'd leave the MANET example in also > since it doesn't hurt. > > Regards, > Alex. > > Russ White wrote: > > > I think I originally asked this: > > > > Replace this: > > > > neighbor. For example, in OSPF (that is, before the MD5 part was > > added), OSPF speaks to all routers on the local link that answer to > > the AllSPFRouters multicast address. Furthermore, MANET protocols > > frequently speak over the broadcast link. > > > > with: > > > > For example, an OSPF router will form a peering relationship with any > > attached device which appears to be running OSPF, unless MD5 > > authentication (or some other means) is used to prevent the peering > > relationship from forming. > > > > I'd pull the manet example, one is enough here, and reference the OSPF > > MD5 draft. > > > > -- > > > > Did we reach a concensus on this? > > > > :-) > > > > Russ > > > > __________________________________ > > riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone > > > > _______________________________________________ > > RPSEC mailing list > > RPSEC@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec > __________________________________ riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec