Sorry for cc-ing the list on this message and the belaboring and critical tone. 
 I intended it as a private message, not a message to the whole wg.

I hope others are looking at the issue.  I haven't seen anyone reply to David.

(Other than my oops-replied-to-all reply, of course.  I wear the dunce cap this 
week.)

--Sandy

On Feb 12, 2015, at 5:40 PM, Sandra Murphy <[email protected]> wrote:

> I think David is right.
> 
> This is embarrassing.  I was looking at the syntax for the protocol in 
> response to David's previous message, realizing that there's no text about 
> what the NLRI length and NLRI prefix fields' syntax should be, looking right 
> at those fields, thinking only that we needed to copy the text from 
> 4271/4760, and did not spot this.
> 
> This is embarrassing for the whole wg for not spotting the syntax laxness.  
> And embarrassing to all the security folk.  There's a standard problem in 
> security protocols about not signing any old group of bits you are given 
> because the signed bits might be used in some other context.  So this should 
> have been spotted much earlier.
> 
> I keep hoping if I look at it closely there's a reason why this is not a 
> problem.  Surely SteveK/MattL/SteveB/RussH/etc if the problem were this 
> obvious?
> 
> Have you two looked at this?
> 
> --Sandy
> 
> On Feb 10, 2015, at 4:48 PM, David Mandelberg <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> All, while coming up with the example below, I realized another issue.
>> The structure in 4.1 doesn't include an Address Family Identifier.
>> Unless I missed something, this means that a signature for 1.2.0.0/16
>> would be exactly the same as a signature for 102::/16. This would be a
>> much more practical attack than the one I originally though of.
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sidr mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

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

Reply via email to