From rpsec-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jun 08 16:53:10 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FoRV0-0006m5-Od; Thu, 08 Jun 2006 16:53:02 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FoRUz-0006lY-TY for rpsec@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Jun 2006 16:53:01 -0400 Received: from ns1.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.100] helo=nutshell.tislabs.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FoRUy-0003NI-M0 for rpsec@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Jun 2006 16:53:01 -0400 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id k58KpaJ0018775 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2006 16:51:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from filbert.tislabs.com(10.66.1.10) by nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap (V6.0) id srcAAARpaiyK; Thu, 8 Jun 06 16:49:54 -0400 Received: (from sandy@localhost) by tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id k58KgBuv002381; Thu, 8 Jun 2006 16:42:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 16:42:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200606082042.k58KgBuv002381@tislabs.com> From: sandy@tislabs.com To: rpsec@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7a6398bf8aaeabc7a7bb696b6b0a2aad Cc: sandy@tislabs.com Subject: [RPSEC] progress on milestone changes? X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: rpsec-bounces@ietf.org The draft deadlines for the July IETF are looming. The suggested new milestones presented at the last IETF included submitting the attack tree drafts and the OSPF vulnerability draft for publication as Informational RFCs. By July 06. But we've not seen new publications of these expired drafts on the list. I don't think we can meet the July 06 deadline for request for publication. Are the new drafts in the works? And did the change in milestones ever get submitted/approved/etc? --Sandy _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From rpsec-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jun 08 18:23:58 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FoSuv-0005yG-AA; Thu, 08 Jun 2006 18:23:53 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FoSut-0005qI-OV for rpsec@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Jun 2006 18:23:51 -0400 Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.102.122.148]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FoSus-0003GN-HK for rpsec@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Jun 2006 18:23:51 -0400 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com ([64.102.124.12]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Jun 2006 15:23:50 -0700 X-BrightmailFiltered: true X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-IronPort-AV: i="4.05,221,1146466800"; d="scan'208"; a="29086348:sNHT20791276" Received: from [10.82.216.229] (rtp-vpn3-229.cisco.com [10.82.216.229]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k58MNnYL002293; Thu, 8 Jun 2006 18:23:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4488A373.90408@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 18:23:47 -0400 From: Russ White User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (Windows/20060516) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sandy@tislabs.com Subject: Re: [RPSEC] progress on milestone changes? References: <200606082042.k58KgBuv002381@tislabs.com> In-Reply-To: <200606082042.k58KgBuv002381@tislabs.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: bb8f917bb6b8da28fc948aeffb74aa17 Cc: rpsec@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: rpsec-bounces@ietf.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > The draft deadlines for the July IETF are looming. The suggested > new milestones presented at the last IETF included submitting > the attack tree drafts and the OSPF vulnerability draft for publication > as Informational RFCs. By July 06. > > But we've not seen new publications of these expired drafts on the list. > I don't think we can meet the July 06 deadline for request for publication. > Are the new drafts in the works? We are working with the authors in both cases. > And did the change in milestones ever get submitted/approved/etc? I've no idea. I'll post that up to Bill and see what happens. :-) Russ - -- riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEiKNzER27sUhU9OQRAobfAKCBsIJqwSBKhnjEa5YCJ7Q85WfYaACgnW1a 3qGQTqef2phr3k7Ckajx2rE= =TcR8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From rpsec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jun 19 15:51:07 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FsPlt-0007rY-Tq; Mon, 19 Jun 2006 15:50:54 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FsPl5-0006jm-BC; Mon, 19 Jun 2006 15:50:03 -0400 Received: from willow.neustar.com ([209.173.53.84]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FsPl4-0000SX-Qe; Mon, 19 Jun 2006 15:50:03 -0400 Received: from stiedprstage1.ietf.org (stiedprstage1.va.neustar.com [10.31.47.10]) by willow.neustar.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k5JJo2Rx002284 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 19 Jun 2006 19:50:02 GMT Received: from ietf by stiedprstage1.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1FsPl4-0007aX-EP; Mon, 19 Jun 2006 15:50:02 -0400 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Message-Id: Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 15:50:02 -0400 X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f66b12316365a3fe519e75911daf28a8 Cc: rpsec@ietf.org Subject: [RPSEC] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-rpsec-ospf-vuln-02.txt X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: rpsec-bounces@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Routing Protocol Security Requirements Working Group of the IETF. Title : OSPF Security Vulnerabilities Analysis Author(s) : E. Jones, O. Le Moigne Filename : draft-ietf-rpsec-ospf-vuln-02.txt Pages : 28 Date : 2006-6-19 Internet infrastructure protocols were designed at the very early stages of computer networks when "cyberspace" was still perceived as a benign environment. As a consequence, malicious attacks were not considered to be a major risk when these protocols were designed, leaving today's Internet vulnerable. This paper provides an analysis of OSPF vulnerabilities that could be exploited to modify the normal routing process across a single domain together with an assessment of when internal OSPF mechanisms can or cannot be leveraged to better secure a domain. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rpsec-ospf-vuln-02.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-rpsec-ospf-vuln-02.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rpsec-ospf-vuln-02.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2006-6-19144345.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rpsec-ospf-vuln-02.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-rpsec-ospf-vuln-02.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2006-6-19144345.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec --NextPart-- From rpsec-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jun 20 10:02:37 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FsgoC-00052G-Ac; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 10:02:24 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FsgoB-0004ty-2p for rpsec@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 10:02:23 -0400 Received: from hostreea1.alcatel.com ([143.209.238.161] helo=audl951.usa.alcatel.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fsgo9-00030L-Ds for rpsec@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 10:02:23 -0400 Received: from USDALN16691 (usdaln16691.usa.alcatel.com [143.209.101.229]) by audl951.usa.alcatel.com (ALCANET) with ESMTP id k5KE2BOY001700; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 09:02:11 -0500 From: "Emanuele Jones" To: Subject: FW: [RPSEC] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-rpsec-ospf-vuln-02.txt Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 09:02:10 -0500 Message-ID: <000d01c69472$1ff30280$e565d18f@ad3.ad.alcatel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 Thread-index: AcaT2cuelMfEyMVVTVCXSsoTn2jRPwAl7yhQ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.51 on 143.209.238.34 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0fa76816851382eb71b0a882ccdc29ac Cc: riw@cisco.com, Emmanuel.Desmet@alcatel.be, ttauber@1-4-5.net, 'Olivier Le Moigne' X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: rpsec-bounces@ietf.org All, I would like to ask the RPSEC WG to consider draft-ietf-rpsec-ospf-vuln-02.txt for further comment or last call. Kind regards, Emanuele -----Original Message----- From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org [mailto:Internet-Drafts@ietf.org] Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 2:50 PM To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: rpsec@ietf.org Subject: [RPSEC] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-rpsec-ospf-vuln-02.txt A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Routing Protocol Security Requirements Working Group of the IETF. Title : OSPF Security Vulnerabilities Analysis Author(s) : E. Jones, O. Le Moigne Filename : draft-ietf-rpsec-ospf-vuln-02.txt Pages : 28 Date : 2006-6-19 Internet infrastructure protocols were designed at the very early stages of computer networks when "cyberspace" was still perceived as a benign environment. As a consequence, malicious attacks were not considered to be a major risk when these protocols were designed, leaving today's Internet vulnerable. This paper provides an analysis of OSPF vulnerabilities that could be exploited to modify the normal routing process across a single domain together with an assessment of when internal OSPF mechanisms can or cannot be leveraged to better secure a domain. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rpsec-ospf-vuln-02.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-rpsec-ospf-vuln-02.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rpsec-ospf-vuln-02.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From rpsec-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jun 20 10:49:01 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FshXB-0006Rn-69; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 10:48:53 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FshXA-0006Qt-3H for rpsec@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 10:48:52 -0400 Received: from mx11.bbn.com ([128.33.0.80]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FshNy-0006yA-Vu for rpsec@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 10:39:24 -0400 Received: from dommiel.bbn.com ([192.1.122.15] helo=[130.192.42.43]) by mx11.bbn.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FshNx-0004gX-3u; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 10:39:21 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <000d01c69472$1ff30280$e565d18f@ad3.ad.alcatel.com> References: <000d01c69472$1ff30280$e565d18f@ad3.ad.alcatel.com> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 10:36:45 -0400 To: "Emanuele Jones" From: Stephen Kent Subject: Re: FW: [RPSEC] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-rpsec-ospf-vuln-02.txt Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 08170828343bcf1325e4a0fb4584481c Cc: rpsec@ietf.org, Emmanuel.Desmet@alcatel.be, ttauber@1-4-5.net, 'Olivier Le Moigne' , riw@cisco.com X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: rpsec-bounces@ietf.org At 9:02 AM -0500 6/20/06, Emanuele Jones wrote: > All, > >I would like to ask the RPSEC WG to consider >draft-ietf-rpsec-ospf-vuln-02.txt for further comment or last call. > >Kind regards, >Emanuele > Emanuele, WG chairs initiate last calls, not authors. Steve _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From rpsec-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jun 22 11:13:01 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FtQrO-0001f4-Br; Thu, 22 Jun 2006 11:12:46 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FtQrM-0001dF-Vt for rpsec@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jun 2006 11:12:44 -0400 Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.100]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FtQrL-00087r-12 for rpsec@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jun 2006 11:12:44 -0400 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id k5MEpPtp019047 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2006 10:51:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from filbert.tislabs.com(10.66.1.10) by nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap (V6.0) id srcAAASvaOiL; Thu, 22 Jun 06 10:51:11 -0400 Received: (from sandy@localhost) by tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id k5ME8rlQ018182; Thu, 22 Jun 2006 10:08:53 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 10:08:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200606221408.k5ME8rlQ018182@tislabs.com> From: sandy@tislabs.com To: rpsec@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126 Cc: sandy@tislabs.com Subject: [RPSEC] about the charter and work items X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: rpsec-bounces@ietf.org Russ said that he was going to check about the status of charter changes. I'd like also to mention one possible additional work item. At the mike at the last IETF, I mentioned taking on the draft that looks at damage if MD5 is broken. The response was that this was probably the OSPF vulnerability analysis mentioned in the slides. (Unfortunately, this comment was too small to make it to the minutes, so I'm working off memory here.) But I was speaking of draft-manral-rpsec-existing-crypto-02.txt, not the recently announced draft-ietf-rpsec-ospf-vuln-02.txt I believe that there is value in looking at the damage to various protocols that use keyed MD5 as an authentication mechanism - as an impetus to change and as a warning to operators while MD5 is still used. So I'm in favor of taking on the Manral draft. Comments? --Sandy _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From rpsec-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jun 22 15:52:04 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FtVCa-0007fC-RV; Thu, 22 Jun 2006 15:50:56 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FtVBl-0005uR-QK; Thu, 22 Jun 2006 15:50:06 -0400 Received: from stsc1260-eth-s1-s1p1-vip.va.neustar.com ([156.154.16.129] helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FtVBl-0004N5-O9; Thu, 22 Jun 2006 15:50:05 -0400 Received: from chsc1260-eth-s1-s1p1-vip.va.neustar.com ([156.154.24.129] helo=oak.neustar.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FtVBj-0002Db-1N; Thu, 22 Jun 2006 15:50:05 -0400 Received: from stiedprstage1.ietf.org (stiedprstage1.va.neustar.com [10.31.47.10]) by oak.neustar.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k5MJo2WR027190 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 22 Jun 2006 19:50:02 GMT Received: from ietf by stiedprstage1.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1FtVBi-0006Ap-Li; Thu, 22 Jun 2006 15:50:02 -0400 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Message-Id: Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 15:50:02 -0400 X-Spam-Score: -5.9 (-----) X-Scan-Signature: 10d3e4e3c32e363f129e380e644649be Cc: rpsec@ietf.org Subject: [RPSEC] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-rpsec-bgpsecrec-06.txt X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: rpsec-bounces@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Routing Protocol Security Requirements Working Group of the IETF. Title : BGP Security Requirements Author(s) : B. Christian, T. Tauber Filename : draft-ietf-rpsec-bgpsecrec-06.txt Pages : 19 Date : 2006-6-22 The security of BGP, the Border Gateway Protocol, is critical to the proper operation of large-scale internetworks, both public and private. While securing the information transmitted between two BGP speakers is a relatively easy technical matter, securing BGP, as a routing system, is more complex. This document describes a set of requirements for securing BGP, including communications between BGP speakers, and the routing information carried within BGP. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rpsec-bgpsecrec-06.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-rpsec-bgpsecrec-06.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rpsec-bgpsecrec-06.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2006-6-22145349.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rpsec-bgpsecrec-06.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-rpsec-bgpsecrec-06.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2006-6-22145349.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec --NextPart-- From rpsec-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jun 22 20:07:56 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FtZD9-00063S-Rl; Thu, 22 Jun 2006 20:07:47 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FtZD8-0005lk-5q for rpsec@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jun 2006 20:07:46 -0400 Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com ([64.102.122.149]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FtZD6-0003GB-Us for rpsec@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jun 2006 20:07:46 -0400 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com ([64.102.124.13]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Jun 2006 20:07:43 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.06,167,1149480000"; d="scan'208"; a="90832511:sNHT29271876" Received: from [10.20.218.174] (rtp-vpn3-395.cisco.com [10.82.217.141]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k5N07gno028917; Thu, 22 Jun 2006 20:07:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <449B30D2.20105@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 20:07:46 -0400 From: Russ White User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (Macintosh/20060530) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sandy@tislabs.com Subject: Re: [RPSEC] about the charter and work items References: <200606221408.k5ME8rlQ018182@tislabs.com> In-Reply-To: <200606221408.k5ME8rlQ018182@tislabs.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7baded97d9887f7a0c7e8a33c2e3ea1b Cc: rpsec@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: rpsec-bounces@ietf.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > Russ said that he was going to check about the status of charter changes. > I'd like also to mention one possible additional work item. At the > mike at the last IETF, I mentioned taking on the draft that looks at > damage if MD5 is broken. The response was that this was probably the > OSPF vulnerability analysis mentioned in the slides. (Unfortunately, > this comment was too small to make it to the minutes, so I'm working > off memory here.) > > But I was speaking of draft-manral-rpsec-existing-crypto-02.txt, > not the recently announced draft-ietf-rpsec-ospf-vuln-02.txt > > I believe that there is value in looking at the damage to various > protocols that use keyed MD5 as an authentication mechanism - as an > impetus to change and as a warning to operators while MD5 is still used. > So I'm in favor of taking on the Manral draft. I've been getting the ospf vulnerability draft and the existing crypto drafts mixed up--how about if we ask both to be presented in Montreal, and then think about (take a hum about) taking them on as WG items? I think we might have already covered this space before (in terms of taking them on as WG items), but it might be good to do a level set of where we are, and what we need to work on. :-) Russ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEmzDRER27sUhU9OQRAt4RAJ9M62fBRabHyoDjPU3xGMycU8M9gACdEcpQ 2RzZrc/n+LTY/RVrJHogy28= =V/b+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From rpsec-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jun 23 13:28:31 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FtpS6-0000TT-6f; Fri, 23 Jun 2006 13:28:18 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FtpS5-0000TH-3L for rpsec@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jun 2006 13:28:17 -0400 Received: from m106.maoz.com ([205.167.76.9]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FtpS3-0007aV-Mm for rpsec@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jun 2006 13:28:17 -0400 Received: from m106.maoz.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by m106.maoz.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k5NHSEud021538; Fri, 23 Jun 2006 10:28:14 -0700 Received: from localhost (ttauber@localhost) by m106.maoz.com (8.13.6/8.12.11/Submit) with ESMTP id k5NHSA04021535; Fri, 23 Jun 2006 10:28:10 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: m106.maoz.com: ttauber owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 10:28:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Tony Tauber X-X-Sender: ttauber@m106.maoz.com To: Russ White Subject: Re: [RPSEC] about the charter and work items In-Reply-To: <449B30D2.20105@cisco.com> Message-ID: References: <200606221408.k5ME8rlQ018182@tislabs.com> <449B30D2.20105@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 538aad3a3c4f01d8b6a6477ca4248793 Cc: rpsec@ietf.org, sandy@tislabs.com X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: rpsec-bounces@ietf.org On Thu, 22 Jun 2006, Russ White wrote: >> Russ said that he was going to check about the status of charter >> changes. I'd like also to mention one possible additional work >> item. At the mike at the last IETF, I mentioned taking on the >> draft that looks at damage if MD5 is broken. The response was that >> this was probably the OSPF vulnerability analysis mentioned in the >> slides. (Unfortunately, this comment was too small to make it to >> the minutes, so I'm working off memory here.) >> >> But I was speaking of draft-manral-rpsec-existing-crypto-02.txt, >> not the recently announced draft-ietf-rpsec-ospf-vuln-02.txt >> >> I believe that there is value in looking at the damage to various >> protocols that use keyed MD5 as an authentication mechanism - as an >> impetus to change and as a warning to operators while MD5 is still >> used. So I'm in favor of taking on the Manral draft. I agree the Manral draft appears relevant, however, I'm not sure your characterization of it's thrust is accurate. The OSPF vulnerability draft is already a WG document. As for presentation ideas for Montreal, bring 'em on. Tony > I've been getting the ospf vulnerability draft and the existing > crypto drafts mixed up--how about if we ask both to be presented in > Montreal, and then think about (take a hum about) taking them on as > WG items? I think we might have already covered this space before > (in terms of taking them on as WG items), but it might be good to do > a level set of where we are, and what we need to work on. > > :-) > > Russ > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFEmzDRER27sUhU9OQRAt4RAJ9M62fBRabHyoDjPU3xGMycU8M9gACdEcpQ > 2RzZrc/n+LTY/RVrJHogy28= > =V/b+ > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > 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 rpsec-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jun 23 14:14:53 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FtqB5-0004Em-Qr; Fri, 23 Jun 2006 14:14:47 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FtqB4-0004Eh-L3 for rpsec@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jun 2006 14:14:46 -0400 Received: from ns1.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.100] helo=nutshell.tislabs.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FtqB1-0001J1-DA for rpsec@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jun 2006 14:14:46 -0400 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id k5NIDk8G001235 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2006 14:13:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from filbert.tislabs.com(10.66.1.10) by nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap (V6.0) id srcAAAb2aOzc; Fri, 23 Jun 06 14:13:43 -0400 Received: (from sandy@localhost) by tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id k5NICIbu015470; Fri, 23 Jun 2006 14:12:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 14:12:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200606231812.k5NICIbu015470@tislabs.com> From: sandy@tislabs.com To: riw@cisco.com, ttauber@1-4-5.net Subject: Re: [RPSEC] about the charter and work items X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7aefe408d50e9c7c47615841cb314bed Cc: rpsec@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: rpsec-bounces@ietf.org >I agree the Manral draft appears relevant, however, I'm not sure your >characterization of it's thrust is accurate. Yes, sorry, I worked off memory. Looking at it again, it seems to be considering replay damages, rather than damage from hash brokenness. --Sandy _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From rpsec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jun 26 03:09:17 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FulDS-0006qX-Le; Mon, 26 Jun 2006 03:09:02 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FulDR-0006qS-7R for rpsec@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Jun 2006 03:09:01 -0400 Received: from wx-out-0102.google.com ([66.249.82.198]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FulDQ-0003i7-0a for rpsec@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Jun 2006 03:09:01 -0400 Received: by wx-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id s12so866677wxc for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2006 00:08:59 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=MR7NTBk1p1D+ZdGeVnNoStmrkwHjPwlnCfqEz54Ki46QQe26IKrwZqYgOhi9WwJ2kLH3OdiQtRvaVB8Vey4KLuTaHfA65JxxL9bmQ/WYE3Cj/VQQRjOMycfrjvWHnvm5jZ8vvnHEryx2Yydr2WaNW9TAm1EhUBFs1oxELKn5M58= Received: by 10.70.78.5 with SMTP id a5mr8078773wxb; Mon, 26 Jun 2006 00:08:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.7.7 with HTTP; Mon, 26 Jun 2006 00:08:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <77ead0ec0606260008v1cfc0188xaa45d3e3fc0be6fe@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 12:38:59 +0530 From: "Vishwas Manral" To: "sandy@tislabs.com" Subject: Re: [RPSEC] about the charter and work items In-Reply-To: <200606231812.k5NICIbu015470@tislabs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <200606231812.k5NICIbu015470@tislabs.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 Cc: rpsec@ietf.org, ttauber@1-4-5.net, riw@cisco.com X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: rpsec-bounces@ietf.org Hi Sandy/ Tony, The draft does talk about the known problems with MD5 and SHA-1 collision attacks. We do dis-reccomend the use of the algorithms however. We have drafts for OSPF/ IS-IS as well as RIP which talk about adding support for additional algorithms besides just MD5. As discussed earlier on the list, it may be hard to make a malicious packet with the same hash value(as fields like checksum/ version etc will have to be correct for the packet not to be discarded). However if such a thing is possible, most of the attacks possible, without the hashing would be possible now. I will add in detail the above description to the draft. Thanks, Vishwas On 6/23/06, sandy@tislabs.com wrote: > >I agree the Manral draft appears relevant, however, I'm not sure your > >characterization of it's thrust is accurate. > > Yes, sorry, I worked off memory. Looking at it again, it seems to be > considering replay damages, rather than damage from hash brokenness. > > --Sandy > > _______________________________________________ > 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