Subject: [pim] WG Query: draft-atwood-pim-sm-linklocal-00.txt

From: JW Atwood <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:15:43 -0400

An Internet-Draft titled "Security Issues in PIM-SM Link-local Messages"
has been posted to the Internet-Drafts directory.  We believe that the
issues discussed in this draft are pertinent to the current
Internet-Draft for PIM-SM, and to the PIM-SM Working Group.  The PIM-SM
draft has acquired a significant amount of material on security issues,
but is hampered by prohibitions in RFC 2402.  Correct and meaningful use
of IPsec AH for PIM-SM link-local messages will have to be addressed
either within the current Internet-Draft, or as soon as the proposed
modifications to the Authentication Header (draft-ietf-ipsec-rfc2402bis)
are accepted by the IESG.

We therefore respectfully request that the draft be made a Working Group
document.

Bill Atwood
Salekul Islam

The abstract is as follows:

This document proposes some modifications to the Internet-Draft for
    Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) Protocol
    regarding security issues of its link-local messages. To protect
    these link-local messages, in the Internet-Draft for PIM-SM a
    security mechanism has been proposed that uses the IPsec
    Authentication Header (AH) protocol. While using IPsec AH protocol,
    the anti-replay mechanism has been disabled. This compromise makes
    PIM-SM vulnerable to Denial of Service (DoS) attack. In this
    document, a new proposal is presented to protect PIM link-local
    messages while activating the anti-replay mechanism as well. This
    proposal builds on the new Security Association lookup method that
    has been specified in the Internet-Draft that revises the AH
    protocol.

-- 

Dr. J.W. Atwood, Eng., Professor  tel:   +1 (514) 848-2424 x3046
Department of Computer Science    fax:   +1 (514) 848-2830
   and Software Engineering
Concordia University LB927-9      email: [email-masked]
1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West    http: //www.cse.Concordia.ca/~bill
Montreal, Quebec Canada H3G 1M8

_______________________________________________
pim mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:41:03 +0300 (EEST)

Hi,

(Cc:ing two people who are probably not on this particular list.)

> are accepted by the IESG.

This looks interesting, and I'll have a look at this.

I'll, observe, however, that this is just one (technical solution) 
piece in the larger puzzle of securing multicast-related protocols 
when you're on the same link as a router.

The interdomain security analysis has been done in
draft-ietf-mboned-mroutesec-04.txt [the document is approved and
practically in the RFC-editor's queue now].  That points out that
we'll need to figure out the threats in the local link, in other
words, relating to MLD/IGMP and PIM (solvable e.g. with
IPsec-protecting the messages).

There has been IMHO excellent start on analyzing the threats with 
MLD/IGMP in draft-daley-magma-smld-prob-00.txt (which I hope will go 
forward), and now I think the critical question is:

 Should the on-link threats to PIM-SM be analyzed and discussed in the 
 same document as the on-link threats to MLD/IGMP?

 And regardless of that, what would be the correct place for such 
 analysis document(s)?  MBONED?  MAGMA?  PIM?  Invidiual submission?
 (If both are in the same document, I guess that would argue for 
 MBONED.)

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings