Hi all,

I promised to take this to list.

So, as presented today, the volume of updates of MFTs and CRLs in the RIPE NCC 
repository vs updates of ROAs is about 1000:1. This is a bad signal -to-noise 
ratio that causes waste of cycles and bandwidth.

= Why this noisy? MITM..
We get this, because we use a 'next update time' of 24 hours, but we actually 
republish every 8 hours to make sure that we can fix issues before things go 
stale. In my understanding we need this because of man-in-the-middle attacks 
involving replay or withhold. And rsync is vulnerable to this (clear text, and 
no authentication of server). If an RP is being fed old data, they would notice 
that something is wrong within 24 hours. A longer period seems scary.. If this 
understanding is wrong I would love to be educated.

= Solved by https?
But assuming this does make sense, I wondered whether RRDP with httpS offers a 
way out of this. With RRDP a CA signs a certificate with an https URL like: 
https//my.repository.example.org/notification.xml. We can trust this because 
it's on a signed certificate. Now, if we can also exclude mitm, because we can 
trust the httpS certificate, this would allow for a much longer period 'next 
update time'. And in the meantime the RP would still learn about updates before 
this, because the notification.xml is checked regularly and would include any 
changes ahead of this.

= If so, how to handle https TAs?
This is a question for RPs. But trusting all https certificates or all default 
TAs configured on a system is potentially problematic if the CA assumes that 
RPs check against mitm. Some of the many TAs preconfigured in browsers have 
been shown to have issues here.

Then again, RP software could be pre-configured with a smaller set of TAs or 
even server certificates for know repositories and offer an interface to 
operators to change this set. Or RPs could accept new certificates for 
repositories, but require operators to confirm changes. The number of expected 
repositories isn't great. But there clearly are scaling issues here.

As I stated on the mic. I don't claim to have the answer. But I think it's 
really worth thinking about ways to reduce the signal-to-noise ratio mentioned.

Tim

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

Reply via email to