Subject: My comment on draft-chen-ldp-ttl

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:28:04 -0600

A more elaborate version of the comment I made at the mic today:

The draft uses the LDP Hello message to negotiate enabling of the TTL
check. Though the draft says that only Link Hellos (T=0) should be
used for this, it does not say anything about securing those Hellos.
Neither RFC3036 nor the draft _require_ the receiving LSR to drop Link
Hellos that are sent to an address other than the AllRouters multicast
(e.g. an LSR's unicast address). So if a spoofed Link Hello is
accepted, the receiver may mistakenly apply the TTL check to a session
with a peer that does not support it, and hence prevent it from coming
up. Similarly, if a Hello without the new parameter is spoofed, the
attacker may cause the LSR to disable the check and mount a
overloading DoS attack against an existing session.

I would suggest that the draft is modified to recommend that Link
Hellos (with or without the new optional parameter) MUST be sent to
the unroutable AllRouters multicast address and MUST be dropped by the
receiver if they are not. This should make the Link Hellos at least as
secure as the session packets.

The Security Consideration section should also be extended to describe
the potential Link Hello spoofing attack possible by an on-the-wire
adversary, and then point out that given the current network
operational practices, the risk of such exposure is considered to be
sufficiently low.

--
Alex

---

From: Albert Tian <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 19:25:56 -0800

Hi, Alex,

These are very good suggestions. We will add more text on making the hello more
secure as well as analyzing the risks of spoofed hellos.

Thanks,

Albert