No it wouldn't.
For AS4 to put the goop back in, it needs to add the signatures of AS2 and 3
to the goop chain. The chain of ASNs in the new signature chain needs to be the
same AS chain as in the BGPSEC.

--Jakob


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sriram, Kotikalapudi [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 1:52 PM
> To: Jakob Heitz (jheitz); IETF SIDR; [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: draft-sriram-route-leak-protection-00
> 
> >I'm not proposing to include it in the BGPSEC signature, It would
> be a separate signature.
> >Once AS2 removes it, it removes the attribute and its signature
> chain.
> >The BGPSEC attribute and its signature chain is a different
> signature chain and not removed.
> >
> >The second attribute I proposed will be covered by the BGPSEC
> signature chain and not removed.
> >
> 
> Jakob,
> 
> OK, you are proposing a separate signature chain besides the BGPSEC
> sig chain.
> But any signature chain must continue end-to-end across the whole AS
> path.
> Because, if a signature chain is allowed to be removed at any point
> in the path, then it becomes vulnerable to cut and paste attack.
> Again, consider an update received at AS5 as P [AS4 AS3 AS2 AS1],
> where AS1 is origin.
> Let us say, AS2 removed your proposed first attribute and the
> associated signature, and forwarded the update to its customer AS3.
> Now AS3 forwards the update to its customer AS4.
> AS4 can somehow learn that AS1 sent the first attribute to AS2 and
> signed it, and it can somehow get that whole 'goop' (i.e. the
> attribute and the sig of AS1).
> Then AS4 can add  back the 'goop', and forward the update to its
> *upstream provider* AS5, and AS5 would be fooled and oblivious of
> the leak.
> 
> (Note: Again think of the reason why partial path signatures are
> disallowed in BGPSEC.
> The same principles should apply here too with any other proposed
> sig chain.)
> 
> Sriram
> 
> >--Jakob
> 

_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr

Reply via email to