Re: possible rsync validation dos vuln
Good news: the disclosure has been postponed Quoting from: https://english.ncsc.nl/latest/news/2021/october/29/upcoming-announcement-of-rpki-cvd-procedure Update 31 October: Talks have resumed, disclosure is postponed. Since 30 October, constructive conversation is fortunately taking place with the parties involved. As such, the NCSC will not publish details about this vulnerability on Monday 1 November, as previously announced, but at a later moment (in agreement with the parties involved). /giovane On 10/29/21 3:03 AM, Randy Bush wrote: > received this vuln notice four days before these children intend to > disclose. so you can guess how inclined to embargo. > > randy > > > From: Koen van Hove > Subject: CVD: Vulnerabilities in RPKI Validators > To: ra...@psg.com, s...@hactrn.net > Cc: c...@ncsc.nl > Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 14:59:21 -0700 > > Dear Randy Bush and Rob Austein, > > Apologies, this email was previously sent to the wrong email address. > > On behalf of the University of Twente and the National Cyber Security > Centre of the Netherlands (NCSC-NL) we want to notify you of a Coordinated > Vulnerability Disclosure for RPKI vulnerabilities that also impact rcynic > developed by Dragon Research Labs. > > The vulnerabilities were discovered by scientific research on the > implementation of RPKI validators. > Together with you, the NCSC-NL, the University of Twente, and multiple > other parties, we would like to come to a timely solution before the > results of this research will be made public. More information about > Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure can be found here [1]. > > The vulnerabilities are classified as a denial of service vulnerability and > impact multiple implementations of RPKI validators including rcynic. Since > RPKI is of international interest we hope that you will work together with > us on this CVD. > > The goal is to have fixes available before 1 November which will also be > the date that the results of this research will become public. Before 1 > November the information in the CVD, or the fact that a CVD is taking > place, is to be kept strictly confidential. The fixes are to be released > collectively on 1 November. > > Please let us know whether you agree to these terms, and want to > participate in this CVD. If so, we will send you the details. We hope to > hear from you. > > If there are any further questions, please let us know. > > Yours sincerely, > > Koen van Hove > University of Twente > > [1] https://english.ncsc.nl/contact/reporting-a-vulnerability-cvd > > - -- > Koen van Hove > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: FlowCrypt Email Encryption 8.1.5 > Comment: Seamlessly send and receive encrypted email > > wsDzBAEBCgAGBQJhecu4ACEJEPnqm/++VTh9FiEE5Q3GCKqW0RQyUpA/+eqb > /75VOH1CjwwAq8Hd0psDhfj6mL4X9ybLGogONpzFKYp9Okv9/CKzQvG4AkLR > Cvrz3vHlQRKJP8I2PYSLZvtG9D/HXjjKcU+m24jjl2qbKKuSwprqQhLAqabN > Md+RZFjQGve5Z4vtJsfhXKc4PhaAzMujVc4Mh5Mdbs4sFEdrub1hSnYKlcQV > PvS/O9SpCYU0E0IC1I455HXxSXUtme+KHtzbGIWQe/mz4KpnZD2Me/Cr1LvG > Od9izri0Qx5vF+kdpR51PEiwHgN+QkmnUP6Gkrca8TSC2x3ta9B1/ZprdCoZ > ZYQ7QUFUAkfV+tKCMaBECNOrnDjw8E9GonvzmqpDHBtKBZ3LaxjZX/sxuuTC > +Ele5nVeWW0ZFqrbanbPy9y1q04tFQd8ewdSN40iXdTj7Ha8GadUhcdSLWqJ > cLmf71qUAvdwpp0Bt1nhExpU/bEtAaxfnEcTRDX43yUkZXSqV5BxYEyneSLj > IvFV9AUi56Cx45ESkGRR1ASuCzoc8FCjRH7KOWnaL3fl > =YQZI > -END PGP SIGNATURE- >
RE: possible rsync validation dos vuln
https://www.ncsc.nl/actueel/nieuws/2021/oktober/29/aanstaande-bekendmaking-cvd-procedure-rpki -Original Message- From: NANOG On Behalf Of Niels Bakker Sent: October 29, 2021 2:01 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: possible rsync validation dos vuln * nanog@nanog.org (Jean St-Laurent via NANOG) [Fri 29 Oct 2021, 19:57 CEST]: >The link doesn't work. 404 > >https://www.ncsc.nl/actueel/nieuws/2021/oktober/29/aanstaande-bekendm | X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 The posted link works fine here but your MUA mangled it so you'll have to do some manual work to put the two parts together again. You're missing "aking-cvd-procedure-rpki" at the end. >What are the specs of that possible dos vuln? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ >Is is reflection or amplification or something else? Maybe you missed the bit where the actual vulnerabilities are under embargo? -- Niels.
Re: possible rsync validation dos vuln
* nanog@nanog.org (Jean St-Laurent via NANOG) [Fri 29 Oct 2021, 19:57 CEST]: The link doesn't work. 404 https://www.ncsc.nl/actueel/nieuws/2021/oktober/29/aanstaande-bekendm | X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 The posted link works fine here but your MUA mangled it so you'll have to do some manual work to put the two parts together again. You're missing "aking-cvd-procedure-rpki" at the end. What are the specs of that possible dos vuln? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Is is reflection or amplification or something else? Maybe you missed the bit where the actual vulnerabilities are under embargo? -- Niels.
RE: possible rsync validation dos vuln
I looked on english.ncsc.nl's news section (it's the most recently published article) and it seems to be referencing OpenBSD's security page as the reason this "CVD" doesn't involve the developers and thus isn't really a CVD. The link is over linelen characters long and it may have gotten truncated. On 29 October 2021 17:52:09 UTC, Jean St-Laurent via NANOG wrote: >The link doesn't work. 404 > >https://www.ncsc.nl/actueel/nieuws/2021/oktober/29/aanstaande-bekendm > >What are the specs of that possible dos vuln? > >Is is reflection or amplification or something else? > >Thanks >Jean > -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
RE: possible rsync validation dos vuln
The link doesn't work. 404 https://www.ncsc.nl/actueel/nieuws/2021/oktober/29/aanstaande-bekendm What are the specs of that possible dos vuln? Is is reflection or amplification or something else? Thanks Jean
Re: possible rsync validation dos vuln
> there's a public statement about this from NCSC-NL: >> https://www.ncsc.nl/actueel/nieuws/2021/oktober/29/aanstaande-bekendmaking-cvd-procedure-rpki blah blah blah bottom line. they gave first notice to devs 4 days before threatened disclosure. that they then asked to embargo was just adding insult to injury. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsible_disclosure we will remember their names. like the herzberg incident, "the internet has two weeks to upgrade all microtiks globally before we intentionally break it again." would they do the same to the electric grid or other scada network? the internet's openness and kindness has led them to think we can be abused willy nilly. we will remember their names. randy
Re: possible rsync validation dos vuln
Barry Greene wrote on 29/10/2021 13:15: "The NCSC will try to resolve the security problem that you have reported in a system within 60 days. Once the problem has been resolved, we will decide in consultation whether and how details will be published.” I would have expected you to council the researchers on responsible disclosure principles. there's a public statement about this from NCSC-NL: https://www.ncsc.nl/actueel/nieuws/2021/oktober/29/aanstaande-bekendmaking-cvd-procedure-rpki "In dit proces is een afweging gemaakt om de ontwikkelaar van RPKI-client pas later te informeren. Deze afweging is gemaakt op basis van het publieke standpunt van deze ontwikkelaars, namelijk steun voor ‘full disclosure’. De ontwikkelaars van RPKI-client hebben het NCSC laten weten dat zij niet akkoord gaan met betrokkenheid onder embargo." "During this process, a decision was made to inform the developer of RPKI-client at a later stage. This decision was made on the basis of the public standpoint of these developers, namely support for 'full disclosure. The developers of RPKI-client have let the NCSC know that they do not agree with involvement under embargo." Looks like the NCSC got confused about OpenBSD's internal security vuln management process, which involves full disclosure on their terms, and the way they operate with disclosures from third parties / multiparty engagement, which involves co-operation with the disclosing party / CERT about mutually acceptable terms, including co-ordinated disclosure, i.e. standard industry practice. Some public clarity from the openbsd people would help here. + there was a screwup with the rcynic developers. It's a bit much to claim that the openbsd (+ rcynic) people didn't agree with involvement under embargo when the terms were apparently: we're releasing details in 4 days and will only tell you what the problem is if you agree to this. Regardless of how this misunderstanding came about, this style of approach doesn't form part of an acceptable vulnerability management process. Nick
Re: possible rsync validation dos vuln
Barry Greene wrote on 29/10/2021 13:15: That only happens if the team has the time to get the fix into the code, tested, validated, regressed, and deployed. I would say this is a classic example of “ego” to publish overruling established principles. The University of Twente should explore requiring classes for responsible disclosure. NCSC, it seems you threw out your own policy: "The NCSC will try to resolve the security problem that you have reported in a system within 60 days. Once the problem has been resolved, we will decide in consultation whether and how details will be published.” I would have expected you to council the researchers on responsible disclosure principles. Indeed + also manage the vendor disclosure process in a more comprehensive / structured way. An interesting and worthwhile outcome here would be a presentation on how the set of inputs into the sausage factory produced the mess that's going to be served for lunch on monday. I.e. let's use this as an opportunity to learn from the mistakes that were made here. Nick
Re: possible rsync validation dos vuln
> On Oct 29, 2021, at 5:26 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > > Because this didn't happen, we now get to look forward to a weekend of > elevated risk, followed by people upending their calendars to handle > un-coordinated upgrades on monday morning. That only happens if the team has the time to get the fix into the code, tested, validated, regressed, and deployed. I would say this is a classic example of “ego” to publish overruling established principles. The University of Twente should explore requiring classes for responsible disclosure. NCSC, it seems you threw out your own policy: "The NCSC will try to resolve the security problem that you have reported in a system within 60 days. Once the problem has been resolved, we will decide in consultation whether and how details will be published.” I would have expected you to council the researchers on responsible disclosure principles. signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
Re: possible rsync validation dos vuln
i would not be surprised if email to my previous addresses ...!uunet!m2xenix!randy ...!uunet!oresoft!randy bounced, making it difficult for these kiddies to reach me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsible_disclosure randy
Re: possible rsync validation dos vuln
Randy Bush wrote on 29/10/2021 02:03: received this vuln notice four days before these children intend to disclose. so you can guess how inclined to embargo. The position doesn't seem to be compatible with e.g. https://www.first.org/global/sigs/vulnerability-coordination/multiparty/FIRST-Multiparty-Vulnerability-Coordination.pdf At the top of the FIRST list: 1. Establish a strong foundation of processes and relationships 2. Maintain clear and consistent communications 2.1. All parties should clearly and securely communicate and negotiate expectations and timelines. Because this didn't happen, we now get to look forward to a weekend of elevated risk, followed by people upending their calendars to handle un-coordinated upgrades on monday morning. Vulnerability researchers perform a valuable service, but enthusiasm needs to be tempered with an understanding that there are real life consequences to not handling this sort of thing in a well-structured way. It doesn't need to be said that: "1. we screwed up with your email address, and 2. we're disclosing in 4 days and aren't telling you what the problem is unless you agree to our terms" is not an appropriate way of handling anything, whatever about claiming to speak on behalf of an NCSC. This won't be the last time a screw-up of this form happens, so maybe NCSC-NL's takeaway should be to ensure that co-ordinated vuln management and disclosure happens in a reasonable way when engaging with all parties? As a separate thing, software authors also need to have clearly defined security notification points and vulnerability management policies. Most have in this situation, but not all. Nick randy From: Koen van Hove Subject: CVD: Vulnerabilities in RPKI Validators To: ra...@psg.com, s...@hactrn.net Cc: c...@ncsc.nl Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 14:59:21 -0700 Dear Randy Bush and Rob Austein, Apologies, this email was previously sent to the wrong email address. On behalf of the University of Twente and the National Cyber Security Centre of the Netherlands (NCSC-NL) we want to notify you of a Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure for RPKI vulnerabilities that also impact rcynic developed by Dragon Research Labs. The vulnerabilities were discovered by scientific research on the implementation of RPKI validators. Together with you, the NCSC-NL, the University of Twente, and multiple other parties, we would like to come to a timely solution before the results of this research will be made public. More information about Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure can be found here [1]. The vulnerabilities are classified as a denial of service vulnerability and impact multiple implementations of RPKI validators including rcynic. Since RPKI is of international interest we hope that you will work together with us on this CVD. The goal is to have fixes available before 1 November which will also be the date that the results of this research will become public. Before 1 November the information in the CVD, or the fact that a CVD is taking place, is to be kept strictly confidential. The fixes are to be released collectively on 1 November. Please let us know whether you agree to these terms, and want to participate in this CVD. If so, we will send you the details. We hope to hear from you. If there are any further questions, please let us know. Yours sincerely, Koen van Hove University of Twente [1] https://english.ncsc.nl/contact/reporting-a-vulnerability-cvd - -- Koen van Hove -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: FlowCrypt Email Encryption 8.1.5 Comment: Seamlessly send and receive encrypted email wsDzBAEBCgAGBQJhecu4ACEJEPnqm/++VTh9FiEE5Q3GCKqW0RQyUpA/+eqb /75VOH1CjwwAq8Hd0psDhfj6mL4X9ybLGogONpzFKYp9Okv9/CKzQvG4AkLR Cvrz3vHlQRKJP8I2PYSLZvtG9D/HXjjKcU+m24jjl2qbKKuSwprqQhLAqabN Md+RZFjQGve5Z4vtJsfhXKc4PhaAzMujVc4Mh5Mdbs4sFEdrub1hSnYKlcQV PvS/O9SpCYU0E0IC1I455HXxSXUtme+KHtzbGIWQe/mz4KpnZD2Me/Cr1LvG Od9izri0Qx5vF+kdpR51PEiwHgN+QkmnUP6Gkrca8TSC2x3ta9B1/ZprdCoZ ZYQ7QUFUAkfV+tKCMaBECNOrnDjw8E9GonvzmqpDHBtKBZ3LaxjZX/sxuuTC +Ele5nVeWW0ZFqrbanbPy9y1q04tFQd8ewdSN40iXdTj7Ha8GadUhcdSLWqJ cLmf71qUAvdwpp0Bt1nhExpU/bEtAaxfnEcTRDX43yUkZXSqV5BxYEyneSLj IvFV9AUi56Cx45ESkGRR1ASuCzoc8FCjRH7KOWnaL3fl =YQZI -END PGP SIGNATURE-
