Threats Introduced by Reliable Server Pooling (RSerPool) and Requirements for Security in Response to Threats
RFC 5355
| Document | Type | RFC - Informational (September 2008) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Maureen Stillman , Senthil Sengodan , Matt Holdrege , Erik Guttman , Ram Gopal | ||
| Last updated | 2015-10-14 | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | (None) | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 5355 (Informational) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Magnus Westerlund | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
RFC 5355
Network Working Group M. Stillman, Ed.
Request for Comments: 5355 Nokia
Category: Informational R. Gopal
Nokia Siemens Networks
E. Guttman
Sun Microsystems
S. Sengodan
Nokia Siemens Networks
M. Holdrege
September 2008
Threats Introduced by Reliable Server Pooling (RSerPool)
and Requirements for Security in Response to Threats
Status of This Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.
Abstract
Reliable Server Pooling (RSerPool) is an architecture and set of
protocols for the management and access to server pools supporting
highly reliable applications and for client access mechanisms to a
server pool. This document describes security threats to the
RSerPool architecture and presents requirements for security to
thwart these threats.
Stillman, et. al. Informational [Page 1]
RFC 5355 RSerPool Threats September 2008
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................3
1.1. Definitions ................................................3
1.2. Conventions ................................................4
2. Threats .........................................................4
2.1. PE Registration/De-Registration Flooding --
Non-Existent PE ............................................4
2.2. PE Registration/De-Registration Flooding --
Unauthorized PE ............................................5
2.3. PE Registration/De-Registration Spoofing ...................6
2.4. PE Registration/De-Registration Unauthorized ...............6
2.5. Malicious ENRP Server Joins the Group of Legitimate
ENRP Servers ...............................................7
2.6. Registration/De-Registration with Malicious ENRP Server ....7
2.7. Malicious ENRP Handlespace Resolution ......................8
2.8. Malicious Node Performs a Replay Attack ....................9
2.9. Re-Establishing PU-PE Security during Failover .............9
2.10. Integrity ................................................10
2.11. Data Confidentiality .....................................10
2.12. ENRP Server Discovery ....................................11
2.13. Flood of Endpoint-Unreachable Messages from the
PU to the ENRP Server ....................................12
2.14. Flood of Endpoint Keep-Alive Messages from the
ENRP Server to a PE ......................................12
2.15. Security of the ENRP Database ............................13
2.16. Cookie Mechanism Security ................................13
2.17. Potential Insider Attacks from Legitimate ENRP Servers ...14
3. Security Considerations ........................................15
4. Normative References ...........................................17
Stillman, et. al. Informational [Page 2]
RFC 5355 RSerPool Threats September 2008
1. Introduction
The RSerPool architecture [RFC5351] supports high-availability and
load balancing by enabling a pool user to identify the most
appropriate server from the server pool at a given time. The
architecture is defined to support a set of basic goals. These
include application-independent protocol mechanisms, separation of
server naming from IP addressing, the use of the end-to-end principle
to avoid dependencies on intermediate equipment, separation of
session availability/failover functionality from the application
itself, the ability to facilitate different server selection
policies, the ability to facilitate a set of application-independent
failover capabilities, and a peer-to-peer structure.
RSerPool provides a session layer for robustness. The session layer
function may redirect communication transparently to upper layers.
This alters the direct one-to-one association between communicating
endpoints that typically exists between clients and servers. In
particular, secure operation of protocols often relies on assumptions
at different layers regarding the identity of the communicating party
and the continuity of the communication between endpoints. Further,
the operation of RSerPool itself has security implications and risks.
The session layer operates dynamically, which imposes additional
concerns for the overall security of the end-to-end application.
This document explores the security implications of RSerPool, both
due to its own functions and due to its being interposed between
applications and transport interfaces.
This document is related to the RSerPool Aggregate Server Access
Protocol (ASAP) [RFC5352] and Endpoint Name Resolution Protocol
(ENRP) [RFC5353] documents, which describe, in their Security
Consideration sections, the mechanisms for meeting the security
requirements in this document. TLS [RFC5246] is the security
mechanism for RSerPool that was selected to meet all the requirements
described in this document. The Security Considerations sections of
ASAP and ENRP describe how TLS is actually used to provide the
security that is discussed in this document.
1.1. Definitions
This document uses the following terms:
Endpoint Name Resolution Protocol (ENRP):
Within the operational scope of RSerPool, ENRP[RFC5353] defines
the procedures and message formats of a distributed fault-tolerant
registry service for storing, bookkeeping, retrieving, and
distributing pool operation and membership information.
Stillman, et. al. Informational [Page 3]
RFC 5355 RSerPool Threats September 2008
Aggregate Server Access Protocol (ASAP):
ASAP [RFC5352] is a session layer protocol that uses ENRP to
provide a high-availability handlespace. ASAP is responsible for
the abstraction of the underlying transport technologies, load
distribution management, fault management, as well as the
presentation to the upper layer (i.e., the ASAP User) of a unified
primitive interface.
Operational scope:
The part of the network visible to pool users by a specific
instance of the Reliable Server Pooling protocols.
Pool (or server pool):
A collection of servers providing the same application
functionality.
Pool handle:
A logical pointer to a pool. Each server pool will be
identifiable in the operational scope of the system by a unique
pool handle.
ENRP handlespace (or handlespace):
A cohesive structure of pool names and relations that may be
queried by a client. A client in this context is an application
that accesses another remote application running on a server using
a network.
Pool element (PE): A server entity having registered to a pool.
Pool user (PU): A server pool user.
1.2. Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. Threats
2.1. PE Registration/De-Registration Flooding -- Non-Existent PE
2.1.1. Threat
A malicious node could send a stream of false registrations/de-
registrations on behalf of non-existent PEs to ENRP servers at a very
rapid rate and thereby create unnecessary state in an ENRP server.
Stillman, et. al. Informational [Page 4]
RFC 5355 RSerPool Threats September 2008
2.1.2. Effect
The malicious node will corrupt the pool registrar database and/or
disable the RSerPool discovery and database function. This
represents a denial-of-service attack, as the PU would potentially
get an IP address of a non-existent PE in response to an ENRP query.
2.1.3. Requirement
An ENRP server that receives a registration/de-registration MUST NOT
create or update state information until it has authenticated the PE.
TLS with a pre-shared-key (PSK) is mandatory to implement as the
authentication mechanism. For PSK, having a pre-shared-key
constitutes authorization. The network administrators of a pool need
to decide which nodes are authorized to participate in the pool. The
justification for PSK is that we assume that one administrative
domain will control and manage the server pool. This allows for PSK
to be implemented and managed by a central security administrator.
2.2. PE Registration/De-Registration Flooding -- Unauthorized PE
2.2.1. Threat
A malicious node or PE could send a stream of registrations/de-
registrations that are unauthorized to register/de-register to ENRP
servers at a very rapid rate and thereby create unnecessary state in
an ENRP server.
2.2.2. Effect
This attack will corrupt the pool registrar database and/or disable
the RSerPool discovery and database function. There is the potential
for two types of attacks: denial of service and data interception.
In the denial-of-service attack, the PU gets an IP address of a rogue
PE in response to an ENRP query, which might not provide the actual
service. In addition, a flood of message could prevent legitimate
PEs from registering. In the data interception attack, the rogue PE
does provide the service as a man in the middle (MITM), which allows
the attacker to collect data.
2.2.3. Requirement
An ENRP server that receives a registration/de-registration MUST NOT
create or update state information until the authentication
information of the registering/de-registering entity is verified.
Stillman, et. al. Informational [Page 5]
RFC 5355 RSerPool Threats September 2008
TLS is used as the authentication mechanism between the ENRP server
and PE. TLS with PSK is mandatory to implement as the authentication
mechanism. For PSK, having a pre-shared-key constitutes
authorization. The network administrators of a pool need to decide
which nodes are authorized to participate in the pool.
2.3. PE Registration/De-Registration Spoofing
2.3.1. Threat
A malicious node could send false registrations/de-registrations to
ENRP servers concerning a legitimate PE, thereby creating false state
information in the ENRP servers.
2.3.2. Effect
This would generate misinformation in the ENRP server concerning a PE
and would be propagated to other ENRP servers, thereby corrupting the
ENRP database. Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) could result: if
a PE that is a target for a DDoS attack for some popular high-volume
service, then the attacker can register a PE to which a lot of PUs
will try to connect. This allows man-in-the-middle or masquerade
attacks on the service provided by the legitimate PEs. If an
attacker registers its server address as a PE and handles the
requests, he can eavesdrop on service data.
2.3.3. Requirement
An ENRP server that receives a registration/de-registration MUST NOT
create or update state information until it has authenticated the PE.
TLS is used as the authentication mechanism between the ENRP server
and the PE. TLS with PSK is mandatory to implement as the
authentication mechanism. For PSK, having a pre-shared-key
constitutes authorization. The network administrators of a pool need
to decide which nodes are authorized to participate in the pool. A
PE can register only for itself and cannot register on behalf of
other PEs.
2.4. PE Registration/De-Registration Unauthorized
2.4.1. Threat
A PE that is not authorized to join a pool could send registrations/
de-registrations to ENRP servers, thereby creating false state
information in the ENRP servers.
Stillman, et. al. Informational [Page 6]
RFC 5355 RSerPool Threats September 2008
2.4.2. Effect
This attack would generate misinformation in the ENRP server
concerning a PE and would be propagated to other ENRP servers thereby
corrupting the ENRP database. This allows man-in-the-middle or
masquerade attacks on the service provided by the legitimate PEs. If
an attacker registers its server address as a PE and handles the
requests, he can eavesdrop on service data.
2.4.3. Requirement
An ENRP server that receives a registration/de-registration MUST NOT
create or update state information until it has authorized the
requesting entity. TLS is used as the authentication mechanism. TLS
with PSK is mandatory to implement as the authentication mechanism.
For PSK, having a pre-shared-key constitutes authorization. The
network administrators of a pool need to decide which nodes are
authorized to participate in the pool.
2.5. Malicious ENRP Server Joins the Group of Legitimate ENRP Servers
2.5.1. Threat
A malicious ENRP server joins the group of legitimate ENRP servers
with the intent of propagating inaccurate updates to corrupt the ENRP
database. The attacker sets up an ENRP server and attempts to
communicate with other ENRP servers.
2.5.2. Effect
The result would be Inconsistent ENRP database state.
2.5.3. Requirement
ENRP servers MUST perform mutual authentication. This would prevent
the attacker from joining its ENRP server to the pool. TLS is used
as the mutual authentication mechanism. TLS with PSK is mandatory to
implement as the authentication mechanism. For PSK, having a
pre-shared-key constitutes authorization. The network administrators
of a pool need to decide which nodes are authorized to participate in
the pool.
2.6. Registration/De-Registration with Malicious ENRP Server
2.6.1. Threat
A PE unknowingly registers/de-registers with a malicious ENRP server.
Stillman, et. al. Informational [Page 7]
RFC 5355 RSerPool Threats September 2008
2.6.2. Effect
The registration might not be properly processed or it might be
ignored. A rogue ENRP server has the ability to return any address
to a user requesting service; this ability could result in denial of
service or connection to a rogue PE that is the attacker's choice for
service.
2.6.3. Requirement
The PE MUST authenticate the ENRP server. TLS is the mechanism used
for the authentication. TLS with PSK is mandatory to implement as
the authentication mechanism. For PSK, having a pre-shared-key
constitutes authorization. The network administrators of a pool need
to decide which nodes are authorized to participate in the pool.
This requirement prevents malicious outsiders and insiders from
adding their own ENRP server to the pool.
2.7. Malicious ENRP Handlespace Resolution
2.7.1. Threat
The ASAP protocol receives a handlespace resolution response from an
ENRP server, but the ENRP server is malicious and returns random IP
addresses or an inaccurate list in response to the pool handle.
2.7.2. Effect
The PU application communicates with the wrong PE or is unable to
locate the PE since the response is incorrect in saying that a PE
with that handle did not exist. A rogue ENRP server has the ability
to return any address to ASAP requesting an address list that could
result in denial of service or connection to a rogue PE of the
attacker's choice for service. From the PE, the attacker could
eavesdrop or tamper with the application.
2.7.3. Requirement
ASAP SHOULD authenticate the ENRP server. TLS with certificates is
the mandatory-to-implement mechanism used for authentication. The
administrator uses a centralized Certificate Authority (CA) to
generate and sign certificates. The certificate is stored on the
ENRP server. A CA trusted root certification authority certificate
is sent to the client out of band, and the certificate signature on
the ENRP server certificate is checked for validity during the TLS
handshake. This authentication prevents malicious outsiders and
insiders from adding an ENRP server to the pool that may be accessed
by ASAP.
Stillman, et. al. Informational [Page 8]
RFC 5355 RSerPool Threats September 2008
2.8. Malicious Node Performs a Replay Attack
2.8.1. Threat
A malicious node could replay the entire message previously sent by a
legitimate entity. This could create false/unnecessary state in the
ENRP servers when the replay is for registration/de-registration or
update.
2.8.2. Effect
The result is that false/extra state is maintained by ENRP servers.
This would most likely be used as a denial-of-service attack if the
replay is used to de-register all PEs.
2.8.3. Requirement
The protocol MUST prevent replay attacks. The replay attack
prevention mechanism in TLS meets this requirement.
2.9. Re-Establishing PU-PE Security during Failover
2.9.1. Threat
The PU fails over from PE A to PE B. In the case that the PU had a
trusted relationship with PE A, the PU will likely not have the same
relationship established with PE B.
2.9.2. Effect
If there was a trust relationship involving security context between
PU and PE A, the equivalent trust relationship will not exist between
PU and PE B. This will violate security policy. For example, if the
security context with A involves encryption and the security context
with B does not, then an attacker could take advantage of the change
in security.
2.9.3. Requirement
The application SHOULD be notified when failover occurs so the
application can take appropriate action to establish a trusted
relationship with PE B. ENRP has a mechanism to perform this
function.
Stillman, et. al. Informational [Page 9]
RFC 5355 RSerPool Threats September 2008
2.10. Integrity
2.10.1. Threat
The following are all instances of the same class of threats, and all
have similar effects.
a. ENRP response to pool handle resolution is corrupted during
transmission.
b. ENRP peer messages are corrupted during transmission.
c. PE sends an update for values, and that information is corrupted
during transmission.
2.10.2. Effect
The result is that ASAP receives corrupt information for pool handle
resolution, which the PU believes to be accurate. This corrupt
information could be an IP address that does not resolve to a PE so
the PU would not be able to contact the server.
2.10.3. Requirement
An integrity mechanism MUST be present. Corruption of data that is
passed to the PU means that the PU can't rely on it. The consequence
of corrupted information is that the IP addresses passed to the PU
might be wrong, in which case, it will not be able to reach the PE.
The interfaces that MUST implement integrity are PE to ENRP server
and ENRP to ENRP server. The integrity mechanism in TLS is used for
this.
2.11. Data Confidentiality
2.11.1. Threat
An eavesdropper capable of snooping on fields within messages in
transit may be able to gather information, such as
topology/location/IP addresses, etc., which may not be desirable to
divulge.
2.11.2. Effect
Information that an administrator does not wish to divulge is
divulged. The attacker gains valuable information that can be used
for financial gain or attacks on hosts.
Stillman, et. al. Informational [Page 10]
RFC 5355 RSerPool Threats September 2008
2.11.3. Requirement
A provision for data confidentiality service SHOULD be available.
TLS provides data confidentiality in support of this mechanism.
2.12. ENRP Server Discovery
2.12.1. Threats
a. Thwarting successful discovery: When a PE wishes to register with
an ENRP server, it needs to discover an ENRP server. An attacker
could thwart the successful discovery of ENRP server(s), thereby
inducing the PE to believe that no ENRP server is available. For
instance, the attacker could reduce the returned set of ENRP
servers to null or a small set of inactive ENRP servers. The
attacker performs a MITM attack to do this.
b. A similar thwarting scenario also applies when an ENRP server or
ASAP on behalf of a PU needs to discover ENRP servers.
c. Spoofing successful discovery: An attacker could spoof the
discovery by claiming to be a legitimate ENRP server. When a PE
wishes to register, it finds the spoofed ENRP server. An
attacker can only make such a claim if no security mechanisms are
used.
d. A similar spoofing scenario also applies when an ENRP server or
ASAP on behalf of a PU needs to discover ENRP servers.
2.12.2. Effects (Letters Correlate with Threats above)
a. A PE that could have been in an application server pool does not
become part of a pool. The PE does not complete discovery
operation. This is a DoS attack.
b. An ENRP server that could have been in an ENRP server pool does
not become part of a pool. A PU is unable to utilize services of
ENRP servers.
c. This malicious ENRP would either misrepresent, ignore, or
otherwise hide or distort information about the PE to subvert
RSerPool operation.
d. Same as above.
Stillman, et. al. Informational [Page 11]
RFC 5355 RSerPool Threats September 2008
2.12.3. Requirement
A provision for authentication MUST be present and a provision for
data confidentiality service SHOULD be present. TLS has a mechanism
for confidentiality.
2.13. Flood of Endpoint-Unreachable Messages from the PU to the ENRP
Server
2.13.1. Threat
Endpoint-unreachable messages are sent by ASAP to the ENRP server
when it is unable to contact a PE. There is the potential that a PU
could flood the ENRP server intentionally or unintentionally with
these messages. The non-malicious case would require an incorrect
implementation. The malicious case would be caused by writing code
to flood the ENRP server with endpoint unreachable messages.
2.13.2. Effect
The result is a DoS attack on the ENRP server. The ENRP server would
not be able to service other PUs effectively and would not be able to
take registrations from PEs in a timely manner. Further, it would
not be able to communicate with other ENRP servers in the pool to
update the database in a timely fashion.
2.13.3. Requirement
The number of endpoint unreachable messages sent to the ENRP server
from the PU SHOULD be limited. This mechanism is described in the
ASAP [RFC5352] protocol document.
2.14. Flood of Endpoint Keep-Alive Messages from the ENRP Server to a
PE
2.14.1. Threat
Endpoint Keep-Alive messages would be sent from the ENRP server to
the PEs during the process of changing the Home ENRP server for this
PE.
2.14.2. Effect
If the ENRP server maliciously sent a flood of endpoint Keep-Alive
messages to the PE, the PE would not be able to service clients. The
result is a DoS attack on the PE.
Stillman, et. al. Informational [Page 12]
RFC 5355 RSerPool Threats September 2008
2.14.3. Requirement
ENRP MUST limit the frequency of Keep-Alive messages to a given PE to
prevent overwhelming the PE. This mechanism is described in the ENRP
[RFC5353] protocol document.
2.15. Security of the ENRP Database
2.15.1. Threat
Another consideration involves the security characteristics of the
ENRP database. Suppose that some of the PEs register with an ENRP
server using security and some do not. In this case, when a client
requests handlespace resolution information from ENRP, it would have
to be informed which entries are "secure" and which are not.
2.15.2. Effect
This would not only complicate the protocol, but actually bring into
question the security and integrity of such a database. What can be
asserted about the security of such a database is a very thorny
question.
2.15.3. Requirement
The requirement is that either the entire ENRP server database MUST
be secure; that is, it has registrations exclusively from PEs that
have used security mechanisms, or the entire database MUST be
insecure; that is, registrations are from PEs that have used no
security mechanisms. ENRP servers that support security MUST reject
any PE server registration that does not use the security mechanisms.
Likewise, ENRP servers that support security MUST NOT accept updates
from other ENRP servers that do not use security mechanisms. TLS is
used as the security mechanism so any information not sent using TLS
to a secure ENRP server MUST be rejected.
2.16. Cookie Mechanism Security
The application layer is out of scope for RSerPool. However, some
questions have been raised about the security of the cookie
mechanism, which will be addressed.
Cookies are passed via the ASAP control channel. If TCP is selected
as the transport, then the data and control channel MUST be
multiplexed. Therefore, the cases:
a. control channel is secured; data channel is not
Stillman, et. al. Informational [Page 13]
RFC 5355 RSerPool Threats September 2008
b. data channel is secured; control channel is not
are not possible, as the multiplexing onto one TCP port results in
security for both data and control channels or neither.
The multiplexing requirement results in the following cases:
1. the multiplexed control channel-data channel is secure; *or*
2. the multiplexed control channel-data channel is not secured.
This applies to cookies in the sense that, if you choose to secure
your control-data channel, then the cookies are secured.
A second issue is that the PE could choose to sign and/or encrypt the
cookie. In this case, it must share keys and other information with
other PEs. This application-level state sharing is out of scope of
RSerPool.
2.17. Potential Insider Attacks from Legitimate ENRP Servers
The previous text does not address all byzantine attacks that could
arise from legitimate ENRP servers. True protection against
misbehavior by authentic (but rogue) servers is beyond the capability
of TLS security mechanisms. Authentication using TLS does not
protect against byzantine attacks, as authenticated ENRP servers
might have been maliciously hacked. Protections against insider
attacks are generally specific to the attack, so more experimentation
is needed. For example, the following discusses two insider attacks
and potential mitigations.
One issue is that legitimate users may choose not to follow the
proposed policies regarding the choice of servers (namely, members in
the pool). If the "choose a member at random" policy is employed,
then a pool user can always set its "random choices" so that it picks
a particular pool member. This bypasses the "load sharing" idea
behind the policy. Another issue is that a pool member (or server)
may report a wrong policy to a user.
To mitigate the first attack, the protocol may require the pool user
to "prove" to the pool member that the pool member was chosen
"randomly", say by demonstrating that the random choice was the
result of applying some hash function to a public nonce. Different
methods may be appropriate for other member scheduling policies.
Stillman, et. al. Informational [Page 14]
RFC 5355 RSerPool Threats September 2008
To mitigate the second attack, the protocol might require the PE to
sign the policy sent to the ENRP server. During pool handle
resolution, the signed policy needs to be sent from an ENRP server to
an ASAP endpoint in a way that will allow the user to later hold the
server accountable to the policy.
3. Security Considerations
This informational document characterizes potential security threats
targeting the RSerPool architecture. The security mechanisms
required to mitigate these threats are summarized for each
architectural component. It will be noted which mechanisms are
required and which are optional.
From the threats described in this document, the security services
required for the RSerPool protocol suite are given in the following
table.
Stillman, et. al. Informational [Page 15]
RFC 5355 RSerPool Threats September 2008
+--------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| Threat | Security mechanism in response |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| Section 2.1 | ENRP server authenticates the PE. |
| Section 2.2 | ENRP server authenticates the PE. |
| Section 2.3 | ENRP server authenticates the PE. |
| Section 2.4 | ENRP server authenticates the PE. |
| Section 2.5 | ENRP servers mutually authenticate. |
| Section 2.6 | PE authenticates the ENRP server. |
| Section 2.7 | The PU authenticates the ENRP server. If the |
| | authentication fails, it looks for another ENRP |
| | server. |
| Section 2.8 | Security protocol that has protection from replay |
| | attacks. |
| Section 2.9 | Either notify the application when failover |
| | occurs so the application can take appropriate |
| | action to establish a trusted relationship with PE |
| | B *or* re-establish the security context |
| | transparently. |
| Section 2.10 | Security protocol that supports integrity |
| | protection. |
| Section 2.12 | Security protocol that supports data |
| | confidentiality. |
| Section 2.11 | The PU authenticates the ENRP server. If the |
| | authentication fails, it looks for another ENRP |
| | server. |
| Section 2.13 | ASAP must control the number of endpoint |
| | unreachable messages transmitted from the PU to |
| | the ENRP server. |
| Section 2.14 | ENRP server must control the number of |
| | Endpoint_KeepAlive messages to the PE. |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------------+
The first four threats, combined with the sixth threat, result in a
requirement for mutual authentication of the ENRP server and the PE.
To summarize, the first twelve threats require security mechanisms
that support authentication, integrity, data confidentiality, and
protection from replay attacks. For RSerPool, we need to
authenticate the following:
o PU -----> ENRP Server (PU authenticates the ENRP server)
o PE <----> ENRP Server (mutual authentication)
o ENRP server <-----> ENRP Server (mutual authentication)
Stillman, et. al. Informational [Page 16]
RFC 5355 RSerPool Threats September 2008
Summary by component:
RSerPool client -- mandatory-to-implement authentication of the ENRP
server is required for accurate pool handle resolution. This is
to protect against threats from rogue ENRP servers. In addition,
confidentiality, integrity, and preventing replay attack are also
mandatory to implement to protect from eavesdropping and data
corruption or false data transmission. Confidentiality is
mandatory to implement and is used when privacy is required.
PE to ENRP communications -- mandatory-to-implement mutual
authentication, integrity, and protection from replay attack is
required for PE to ENRP communications. This is to protect the
integrity of the ENRP handlespace database. Confidentiality is
mandatory to implement and is used when privacy is required.
ENRP to ENRP communications -- mandatory-to-implement mutual
authentication, integrity, and protection from replay attack is
required for ENRP to ENRP communications. This is to protect the
integrity of the ENRP handlespace database. Confidentiality is
mandatory to implement and is used when privacy is required.
4. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.
[RFC5352] Stewart, R., Xie, Q., Stillman, M., and M. Tuexen,
"Aggregate Server Access Protocol (ASAP)", RFC 5352,
September 2008.
[RFC5353] Xie, Q., Stewart, R., Stillman, M., Tuexen, M., and A.
Silverton, "Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy Protocol
(ENRP)", RFC 5353, September 2008.
[RFC5351] Lei, P., Ong, L., Tuexen, M., and T. Dreibholz, "An
Overview of Reliable Server Pooling Protocols", RFC 5351,
September 2008.
Stillman, et. al. Informational [Page 17]
RFC 5355 RSerPool Threats September 2008
Authors' Addresses
Maureen Stillman, Ed.
Nokia
1167 Peachtree Court
Naperville, IL 60540
USA
EMail: maureen.stillman@nokia.com
Ram Gopal
Nokia Siemens Networks
12278 Scripps Summit Drive
San Diego, CA 92131
USA
EMail: ram.gopal@nsn.com
Erik Guttman
Sun Microsystems
Eichhoelzelstrasse 7
74915 Waibstadt
DE
EMail: Erik.Guttman@sun.com
Senthil Sengodan
Nokia Siemens Networks
6000 Connection Drive
Irving, TX 75039
USA
EMail: Senthil.sengodan@nsn.com
Matt Holdrege
EMail: Holdrege@gmail.com
Stillman, et. al. Informational [Page 18]
RFC 5355 RSerPool Threats September 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Stillman, et. al. Informational [Page 19]