IPv6 Security [Was: Re: misunderstanding scale]

Tue Mar 25 01:39:16 UTC 2014

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

It is unsettling to see such dismissive attitudes.

I'll leave it as an exercise for the remainder of... everywhere to
figure out why there is resistance to v6 migration, and it isn't "just
because" people can't be bothered.

Your customers are your compasses. And as Randy Bush always like to
say (paraphrased), "I encourage my competitors to dismiss customer
concerns over IPv6 migration."

Cheers,

- - ferg

On 3/24/2014 6:18 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:

> 
> On Mar 23, 2014, at 2:45 PM, Paul Ferguson
> <fergdawgster at mykolab.com> wrote:
> 
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
>> 
>> On 3/23/2014 2:27 PM, Timothy Morizot wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Mar 23, 2014 11:27 AM, "Paul Ferguson" 
>>> <fergdawgster at mykolab.com <mailto:fergdawgster at mykolab.com>> 
>>> wrote:
>>>> Also, IPv6 introduces some serious security concerns, and
>>>> until they are properly addressed, they will be a serious
>>>> barrier to even considering it.
>>> 
>>> And that is pure FUD. The sorts of security risks with IPv6
>>> are mostly in the same sorts of categories as those with IPv4
>>> and have appropriate mitigations available. Moreover, by not
>>> enabling and controlling IPv6 on their networks, an operator is
>>> actually markedly more vulnerable to IPv6 attacks, not less.
>>> 
>> 
>> Only if end-points are unaware of dual-stack capabilities.
>> 
>> Also, neighbor discovery, for example, can be dangerous
>> (admittedly, so can ARP spoofing in IPv4). And aside from the
>> spoofable ability of ND, robust DHCPv6 is needed for enterprises
>> for sheer operational continuity.
>> 
> 
> DHCPv6 is no less robust in my experience than DHCPv4.
> 
> ARP and ND have mostly equivalent issues.
> 
>> And that's only a "half" example.
>> 
>> I haven't even mentioned spam management in v6, which will become
>> a nightmare if people have been relying on IP BL's or similar.
> 
> IP reputation didn’t really scale to IPv4 and was only practical
> because we were willing to toss out vast swaths of hosts just
> because they were unfortunately behind the same NATed address as
> some host that did something wrong some time.
> 
> So far, it’s proven to be the worst possible solution to SPAM
> except for all the others. Nonetheless, yes, we’re going to have to
> come up with a better way in IPv6.
> 
> OTOH, we will also have better end-to-end accountability in IPv6,
> so that might actually help make new solutions more feasible.
> 
> Owen
> 
> 
> 
> 

- -- 
Paul Ferguson
VP Threat Intelligence, IID
PGP Public Key ID: 0x54DC85B2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iF4EAREIAAYFAlMw3kQACgkQKJasdVTchbLrmwEAkjajKru+lEgOO1U1i5c/AEQR
/r8+H3dzeI+IyAKQAu8A/i0HEds8D3iyFnwKzLrUBwqP+Avt51BMW0+f67E4xmsX
=vlZZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----