nanog mailing list archives

Re: RPKI unknown for superprefixes of existing ROA ?


From: Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc>
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2023 13:45:53 -0400


Look again, Tom. This is an attack vector using a LESS specific route. The
/22 gets discarded, but a covering /0-/21 would not.


Yes. And reliant on the operator doing something exceptionally not smart to
begin with.  Relying on an AS0 ROA alone and not actually announcing the
covering prefix as well isn't a good thing to do.

On Sun, Oct 22, 2023 at 1:39 PM Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:

Look again, Tom. This is an attack vector using a LESS specific route. The
/22 gets discarded, but a covering /0-/21 would not.

Owen

On Oct 22, 2023, at 10:06, Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc> wrote:



And is it your belief that this addresses the described attack vector?
AFAICT, it does not.


Quoting myself :

WITH the assertion that all routers in the routing domain are RPKI
enabled, and discarding RPKI INVALIDs.


 In the mixed RPKI / non-RPKI environment of today's internet, no it
doesn't. This does not mean that RPKI is deficient, or the AS 0 ROA doesn't
work as intended, as was stated.



On Sun, Oct 22, 2023 at 12:57 PM William Herrin <bill () herrin us> wrote:

On Sun, Oct 22, 2023 at 9:38 AM Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc> wrote:
He's saying that someone could come along and advertise 0.0.0.0/1 and
128.0.0.0/1 and by doing so they'd hijack every unrouted address block
regardless of the block's ROA.

RPKI is unable to address this attack vector.


https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6483

Section 4


A ROA with a subject of AS 0 (AS 0 ROA) is an attestation by the
holder of a prefix that the prefix described in the ROA, and any more
specific prefix, should not be used in a routing context.

And is it your belief that this addresses the described attack vector?
AFAICT, it does not.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


--
William Herrin
bill () herrin us
https://bill.herrin.us/



Current thread: