[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: TOS copying considered harmful
At 10:00 PM -0400 9/14/00, Black_David@emc.com wrote:
>h> IPsec is a security protocol, thus it is appropriate for it to
> > include explicit controls when security-relevant mapping takes place
> > relevant to a tunnel. By the way, it's not traffic analysis per se
> > that is the major concern. The concern is that a Trojan Horse
> > "behind" the IPsec implementation uses the TOS field to exfiltrate
> > data.
>
>And if the network beyond the tunnel egress is using that field to
>determine which packets get what QoS-based services, there
>are also possible denial of service attacks based on modifying
>the field in the outer header of tunneled traffic.
>
>For the record, I like Steve's proposal for modifications to RFC 2401's
>rules for tunnel header processing, and there's text in a number of
>diffserv RFCs that was written in anticipation/hope of such changes
>(e.g., see p.30 of RFC 2475). I would expect that specification of
>these changes would be accompanied by guidance on their proper
>use and warning about security risks that may make them
>inappropriate to configure/use in some situations, right?
Right.
Steve
References: