Security Implications of IPv6 Fragmentation with IPv6 Neighbor Discovery
draft-ietf-6man-nd-extension-headers-04
| The information below is for an old version of the document | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (6man WG) | |
| Last updated | 2013-04-16 (latest revision 2013-03-22) | ||
| Replaces | draft-gont-6man-nd-extension-headers | ||
| Stream | IETF | ||
| Intended RFC status | Proposed Standard | ||
| Formats | plain text pdf html bibtex | ||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Robert Hinden | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show (last changed 2012-12-10) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed | |
| Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date |
Needs a YES. Needs 9 more YES or NO OBJECTION positions to pass. |
||
| Responsible AD | Brian Haberman | ||
| Send notices to | 6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-6man-nd-extension-headers@tools.ietf.org | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | IANA - Review Needed | |
| IANA action state | None | ||
IPv6 maintenance Working Group (6man) F. Gont
Internet-Draft SI6 Networks / UTN-FRH
Updates: 3971, 4861 (if approved) March 22, 2013
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: September 23, 2013
Security Implications of IPv6 Fragmentation with IPv6 Neighbor Discovery
draft-ietf-6man-nd-extension-headers-04
Abstract
This document analyzes the security implications of employing IPv6
fragmentation with Neighbor Discovery (ND) messages. It updates RFC
4861 such that use of the IPv6 Fragmentation Header is forbidden in
all Neighbor Discovery messages, thus allowing for simple and
effective counter-measures for Neighbor Discovery attacks. Finally,
it discusses the security implications of using IPv6 fragmentation
with SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND), and formally updates RFC 3971
to provide advice regarding how the aforementioned security
implications can be prevented.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 23, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
Gont Expires September 23, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft ND and IPv6 Fragmentation March 2013
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Traditional Neighbor Discovery and IPv6 Fragmentation . . . . 5
3. SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) and IPv6 Fragmentation . . . 6
4. Rationale for Forbidding IPv6 Fragmentation in Neighbor
Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Operational Advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Gont Expires September 23, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft ND and IPv6 Fragmentation March 2013
1. Introduction
The Neighbor Discovery Protocol (NDP) is specified in RFC 4861
[RFC4861]. It is used by both hosts and routers. Its functions
include Neighbor Discovery (ND), Router Discovery (RD), Address
Autoconfiguration, Address Resolution, Neighbor Unreachability
Detection (NUD), Duplicate Address Detection (DAD), and Redirection.
Many of the possible attacks against the Neighbor Discovery Protocol
are discussed in detail in [RFC3756]. In order to mitigate the
aforementioned possible attacks, the SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND)
was standardized. SEND employs a number of mechanisms to certify the
origin of Neighbor Discovery packets and the authority of routers,
and to protect Neighbor Discovery packets from being the subject of
modification or replay attacks.
However, a number of factors, such as the use of trust anchors and
the unavailability of SEND implementations for many widely-deployed
operating systems, make SEND hard to deploy [Gont-DEEPSEC2011].
Show full document text