Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Threat Analysis
draft-ietf-lisp-threats-15
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2016-04-22
|
15 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2016-04-12
|
15 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2016-03-18
|
15 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2016-02-22
|
15 | Jean Mahoney | Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'No Response' |
2016-02-04
|
15 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2016-02-03
|
15 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2016-02-03
|
15 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2016-02-03
|
15 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2016-02-03
|
15 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2016-02-03
|
15 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2016-02-03
|
15 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2016-02-03
|
15 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2016-02-03
|
15 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-02-03
|
15 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-02-03
|
15 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot approval text was changed |
2016-01-29
|
15 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2016-01-29
|
15 | Luigi Iannone | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2016-01-29
|
15 | Luigi Iannone | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-threats-15.txt |
2016-01-28
|
14 | Tero Kivinen | Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response' |
2016-01-25
|
14 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response' |
2016-01-21
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2016-01-21
|
14 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2016-01-21
|
14 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2016-01-20
|
14 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2016-01-20
|
14 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2016-01-20
|
14 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2016-01-20
|
14 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2016-01-20
|
14 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot comment] Would have been nice to see a thorough privacy analysis in Section 4. Perhaps that can be a topic for future work. |
2016-01-20
|
14 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2016-01-20
|
14 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2016-01-19
|
14 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2016-01-19
|
14 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] Thanks for doing this document. I think it's a useful part of the LISP documentation set. general: I think you underestimate the purely … [Ballot comment] Thanks for doing this document. I think it's a useful part of the LISP documentation set. general: I think you underestimate the purely passive threats - my point on 2.2 below was almost a DISCUSS but given the WG have already adopted draft-ietf-lisp-crypto I figured there's no need to try block this. I would really encourage you to consider the threats that are mitigated by that specification here, even if those threats weren't initially considered as being that relevant to LISP (when the work on LISP began I mean). If that had been done already in this draft, I'd have been a YES ballot, if that makes any difference;-) - intro: I think you should add a few caveats here to say that you're not covering threats due to specific implementations and also that the text here captures only those LISP-specific threats we know about today and that more *will* be discovered as deployment continues. - intro: you don't write about DNS here, but if some LISP configuration settings use DNS names then via DNS with no DNSSEC an attacker can decide to be on-path sometimes, off-path other times. That (or similar) might be a nice way to illustrate the scope here, while also alerting the implementer to other threats that might affect their implementations. - 2.1 I think it'd be valuable to say that the 2.1.x sections are really just for the sake of exposition - we cannot assume that all attackers fall into any neat category. You do note this (more or less) in 2.1.5 but I think that'd be better done in 2.1. The reason to suggest this change is that being open to attackers not conforming to our descriptions is important. - 2.2 - which section here covers purely passive monitoring? All the 2.2.x seem to only cover active attacks. (I'd also suggest moving the 2.2.10 text to 2.2 similarly to the suggestion above for 2.1.) - 3.8 - you probably need to note somewhere (not sure where) that a bad PRNG would improve the attacker's chances in various ways. I think a calculation of the probability of a nonce collision (for both a good and not-good PRNG) could be a useful addition. - 3.8, 3rd para: I would argue that this threat is a "core" point to be made, as it's arguably the main LISP-specific threat and ought be emphasised more, e.g. via a mention and pointer in the introduction, or otherwise. - section 4 is pretty weak to be honest. I think you could at least recognise that LISP, as with any mechanism that concentrates traffic (between xTRs) means that passively monitoring plaintext is easier than before and that there is therefore value in encrypting the traffic between xTRs as is proposed in draft-ietf-lisp-crypto - (nit) section 5 has a really odd sentence " The usage will be designed and defined specific for the needs of the specification." I've no idea what that means TBH. |
2016-01-19
|
14 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2016-01-18
|
14 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2016-01-18
|
14 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2016-01-15
|
14 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2016-01-15
|
14 | Deborah Brungard | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2016-01-15
|
14 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2016-01-14
|
14 | Deborah Brungard | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2016-01-21 |
2016-01-14
|
14 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot has been issued |
2016-01-14
|
14 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-01-14
|
14 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot has been issued |
2016-01-14
|
14 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2016-01-14
|
14 | Deborah Brungard | Created "Approve" ballot |
2016-01-14
|
14 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-01-11
|
14 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2016-01-11
|
14 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-lisp-threats-14.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this … (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-lisp-threats-14.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions. While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal IANA Specialist ICANN |
2016-01-07
|
14 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Shaun Cooley |
2016-01-07
|
14 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Shaun Cooley |
2016-01-04
|
14 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Alexey Melnikov |
2016-01-04
|
14 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Alexey Melnikov |
2016-01-04
|
14 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tina Tsou |
2016-01-04
|
14 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tina Tsou |
2015-12-31
|
14 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2015-12-31
|
14 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: draft-ietf-lisp-threats@ietf.org, jmh@joelhalpern.com, lisp@ietf.org, db3546@att.com, lisp-chairs@ietf.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: draft-ietf-lisp-threats@ietf.org, jmh@joelhalpern.com, lisp@ietf.org, db3546@att.com, lisp-chairs@ietf.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (LISP Threats Analysis) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from the Locator/ID Separation Protocol WG (lisp) to consider the following document: - 'LISP Threats Analysis' as Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-01-15. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document provides a threat analysis of the Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP). The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-threats/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-threats/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2015-12-31
|
14 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2015-12-30
|
14 | Deborah Brungard | Last call was requested |
2015-12-30
|
14 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-12-30
|
14 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was generated |
2015-12-30
|
14 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2015-12-30
|
14 | Deborah Brungard | Last call announcement was changed |
2015-12-30
|
14 | Deborah Brungard | Last call announcement was generated |
2015-12-20
|
14 | Luigi Iannone | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-threats-14.txt |
2015-10-14
|
13 | (System) | Notify list changed from jmh@joelhalpern.com, lisp-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-lisp-threats.shepherd@ietf.org, draft-ietf-lisp-threats.ad@ietf.org, draft-ietf-lisp-threats@ietf.org to (None) |
2015-10-04
|
13 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2015-10-04
|
13 | Deborah Brungard | Intended Status changed to Informational |
2015-10-04
|
13 | Deborah Brungard | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2015-10-04
|
13 | Deborah Brungard | Working group state set to Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2015-08-26
|
13 | Luigi Iannone | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-threats-13.txt |
2015-07-20
|
12 | Deborah Brungard | Shepherding AD changed to Deborah Brungard |
2015-07-19
|
12 | Luigi Iannone | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2015-07-10
|
12 | Joel Halpern | Changed document writeup |
2015-07-10
|
12 | Joel Halpern | Notification list changed to "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> |
2015-07-10
|
12 | Joel Halpern | Document shepherd changed to Joel M. Halpern |
2015-04-15
|
12 | Luigi Iannone | WG LC Consensus during 92nd IETF meeting in Dallas. During the subsequent two weeks WG LC on the mailing list no issue have been raised, … WG LC Consensus during 92nd IETF meeting in Dallas. During the subsequent two weeks WG LC on the mailing list no issue have been raised, hence consensus is confirmed. |
2015-04-15
|
12 | Luigi Iannone | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2015-03-05
|
12 | Damien Saucez | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-threats-12.txt |
2014-12-30
|
11 | Damien Saucez | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-threats-11.txt |
2014-07-04
|
10 | Damien Saucez | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-threats-10.txt |
2014-04-08
|
09 | Damien Saucez | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-threats-09.txt |
2013-11-19
|
08 | Terry Manderson | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2013-11-19
|
08 | Terry Manderson | Annotation tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared. |
2013-10-29
|
08 | Terry Manderson | IETF WG state changed to WG Document from In WG Last Call |
2013-10-29
|
08 | Terry Manderson | Annotation tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set. |
2013-10-21
|
08 | Damien Saucez | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-threats-08.txt |
2013-10-07
|
07 | Damien Saucez | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-threats-07.txt |
2013-10-01
|
06 | Damien Saucez | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-threats-06.txt |
2013-08-29
|
05 | Damien Saucez | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-threats-05.txt |
2013-02-25
|
04 | Damien Saucez | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-threats-04.txt |
2012-11-21
|
03 | Terry Manderson | IETF state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2012-10-16
|
03 | Terry Manderson | Entered WG LC |
2012-10-16
|
03 | Luigi Iannone | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-threats-03.txt |
2012-09-11
|
02 | Damien Saucez | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-threats-02.txt |
2012-03-01
|
01 | Damien Saucez | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-threats-01.txt |
2012-01-05
|
00 | (System) | Document has expired |
2011-07-04
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-threats-00.txt |