On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 2:17 PM Randy Bush <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> 'datacenter operators' == "hyperscale web wonkers" ?
> >> i asked in lsvr, which is what i guess you woud call hyperscale.
> >> lsvr also tends toward decentralized,
> > sorry: 'decentralized' means what here?
>
> for example, compare jupiter rising to bgp-spf; both of which i think
> are super cool
>
>
oh! decentralized routing decision vs
> >>> or 'datacenter operators' == 'colo provider' ('the planet' not
> >>> 'equinix' and 'the planet' is now 'someone else' but...)
> >> 1x would seem especially inapporpriate here as there is no
> >> centralisation of authority.
> > So, in a large datacenter where randos are able to walk around and
> > affect change to my cage's in/outs (and potentially clamp mitm/etc
> > gear without my knowledge) there's a different 'security concern' than
> > there is in a building I wholey own and operate behind several layers
> > of physical security and such.
>
> there are probably threats shared between the two, oh frabjious joy.
> but i suspect the intersection is far smaller than the union.
>
>
ok.
> > If all of your "datacenter deployment" is inside a single cage in a
> > colocation building you MAY be "safe", but if you span cage spaces
> > (who ever decided on day-one in a building that they only would ever
> > need 640kb ram/squarefeet/kw/etc?) you are potentially sending your
> > 'routing protocols' over links outside of your immediate security
> > perimeter.
>
> yes, in which case one worries about those monkeys in the middle more
> than ever
>
>
yup.
> > That seems rather scary... like kinda really scary, actually... I
> > wonder how often people consider: "security of the data in the
> > datacenter (at rest or in flight)" but forget about the routing system
> > which is intrinsic to the operation of that datacenter?
>
> we would be out of work were it not for the naïve :)
>
>
it's not really just 'naive' as much as shifting sands of requirements and
sudden successes :)
> >>>>> Is recommending 802.1x possible/sufficient (given the description in
> >>>>> Randy's strawperson comment)?
> >>>> it's a long way to that radius server
> >> with coffee, i might expand a bit. during turn up of new links and
> >> devices, it may not be easy to get to a distant 1x authority.
> > I'd point out that if you put business critical dependencies 'far
> > away' you are a competitor I'd love to have? :)
> > Ideally once you figure out your deployment scenario and drive down
> > all the dependency tree branches you figure out who/what needs to be
> > "local" to the deployment, and how to live in a state where that
> > dependency is unfulfilled for part of the turnup/repair/turndown
> > workflows. Right?
>
> sure. but at the moment, i am trying to tease out the lsvr ops' threat
> models.
>
>
ok, i'll be quiet now and see what other people think are problematic :)
> randy
>
_______________________________________________
OPSEC mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
