[LAC-TF] Fwd: Next steps for draft-gont-6man-predictable-fragment-id

[Fernando Gont]

Estimados,

El 6man g de la IETF está deciiendo que hacer con este I-D --
basicamente, si adoptarlo como wg item, o no.

Les pido que quienes hayan leido el I-D, o al menos entiendan el
problema, participen de la discusión.

Una buena cantidad de las implementaciones IPv6 existentes son
vulnerables a este problema -- que tiene como implicancias DoS o
"information leakage".

El problema es facl de arreglar... pero el nivel de "paja" existente (o
intereses por parte de algunos) lo ha hecho mas dificil de lo que debería.

Personalmente, estoy considerando seriamente incluir en el toolkit una
herramienta automatizada para explotar este problema para realizar
DoS... lamentablemente, parece ser que hasta que la gente no vea su red
caida, no va a tomar consciencia.

Saludos, y gracias!
Fernando




-------- Original Message --------
From: Ole Troan <otroan at employees.org>
Subject: Next steps for draft-gont-6man-predictable-fragment-id
Message-Id: <1D5AC9C6-2FC2-455D-930E-A8BA83C37D5B at employees.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 20:51:38 +0100
To: ipv6 at ietf.org 6man-wg <ipv6 at ietf.org>

Hi,

The draft-gont-6man-predictable-fragment-id document has been discussed
a few times.
At the IETF84 (minutes attached below), and in the thread:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg15836.html

Could we get the working groups opinion on what to do with the document?

- Is there interest in working on it in 6man?
  (if yes, you must be willing to contribute, if no, then say why)

Best regards,
Ole & Bob



IETF84 minutes:
============
Fernando Gont presented the draft about Security Implications of
Predictable Fragment Identification Values,
(draft-gont-6man-predictable-fragment-id-02.txt)

Ole Troan wanted to make this document more generic and discuss the
implications of using predictable values in Internet
protocols. Fernando

Bob Hinden wanted to see a longer list of OSs. He was also curious as
to whether this was problem that needed to be fixed in IETF or was
this already common knowledge.

Erik Kline wanted to know if there was an IAB document that
recommended the use of non-predictable values if there was an integer
field that did not need specific values.

Thomas Narten was not sure what to do with this. This fell under the
category of "don't do anything stupid". e.g. Why do a document for
IPv6 for things that were well known in IPv4?

Lorenzo Colitti thought that this work was not harmful and should be
pursued irrespective of any iab work.

Brian Haberman did not want to have a point solution for every field
and he would like to see a more general document applicable across the
IETF. Fernando was concerned on whether implementers would read this
generic document. Brian believed that this generic document could be
referred to in the node requirements document, thus ensuring that IPv6
implementers would read it.

Joel Jaeggli thought that it was a worthwhile activity to look at
existing implementations and flag this as a potential issue that was
common across multiple implementations. Thomas Narten and Erik Kline
agreed with Joel.

Dave mentioned that RFC4732 (Internet DOS considerations) talked about
using unpredictable values for session ids. Fernando talked about
other issues discovered after 4732 that still had this issue. Dave
believed that this sort of work needs to be done by the saag and if
this was included in a statement from saag as something to look for in
SecDir reviews, it would have the largest impact.

Chairs wanted to continue discussion on mailing list and requested
Fernando to discuss potential changes with Joel J.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6 at ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------


-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando at gont.com.ar || fgont at si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1