Subject: Re: [RPSEC] OSPF vulnerabilities draft

From: "Emanuele Jones" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 09:01:38 -0400

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' ; [email-masked]
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:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 23:21
To: [email-masked]
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: [email-masked]

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

---

From: Tony Tauber <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 10:49:00 -0400 (EDT)

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Emanuele Jones wrote:
> 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

---

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:11:48 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

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

> details though we probably want to avoid cross-posting.

__________________________________
[email-masked] CCIE <>< Grace Alone