nanog mailing list archives
Re: MD5 considered harmful
From: Zaid Ali <zaid () zaidali com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 16:04:49 -0800
I am in the camp of no MD5 in general and more specifically IX. It is a real pain to manage MD5 and no network in my experience has ever implemented a sustainable solution. There is no BCP that folks follow so generally its a verbal agreement that someone in either party will maintain the record. This works until that operator leaves the job and the MD5 is in their email box which is no longer accessible. I would say this is pretty common, I have inherited quite a few networks where I had to deal with this problem. Also most common places where people store MD5's are not in secure locations. I would argue that even though you connect via shared medium in the case of an IX you can still use TTL. Zaid On 1/27/12 3:20 PM, "Jared Mauch" <jared () puck nether net> wrote:
On Jan 27, 2012, at 3:52 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:Your network, your decision. On my network, we do not do MD5. We do more traffic than anyone and have to be in the top 10 of total eBGP peering sessions on the planet. Guess how many times we've seen anyone even attempt this attack? If you guessed more than zero, guess again. I am fully well aware saying this in a public place means someone, probably many someones, will try it now just to prove me wrong. I still don't care. What does that tell you? STOP USING MD5 ON BGP.I would generally say: If you are on a p2p link or control the network, then yeah, you don't need md5. If you are at a shared medium (e.g.: IX) I do recommend it there, as it will help mitigate cases where someone can hijack your session by putting your IP/ASN whatnot on the router. The threat (Attack) never became real and we've now had enough time that even the slowest carriers are running fixed code. - Jared
Current thread:
- Re: MD5?, (continued)
- Re: MD5? Christopher Morrow (Jan 27)
- Re: MD5? Jon Lewis (Jan 27)
- Re: MD5? Christopher Morrow (Jan 27)
- MD5 considered harmful Patrick W. Gilmore (Jan 27)
- Re: MD5 considered harmful Christopher Morrow (Jan 27)
- Re: MD5 considered harmful Grzegorz Janoszka (Jan 27)
- Re: MD5 considered harmful Jared Mauch (Jan 27)
- Re: MD5 considered harmful Keegan Holley (Jan 27)
- Re: MD5 considered harmful Jeff Wheeler (Jan 27)
- Re: MD5 considered harmful Keegan Holley (Jan 27)
- Re: MD5? Christopher Morrow (Jan 27)
- Re: MD5 considered harmful Zaid Ali (Jan 27)
- Re: MD5 considered harmful Patrick W. Gilmore (Jan 27)
- Re: MD5 considered harmful John Kristoff (Jan 30)
- Re: MD5 considered harmful Keegan Holley (Jan 30)
- Re: MD5 considered harmful harbor235 (Jan 31)
- Re: MD5 considered harmful David Barak (Jan 31)
- Re: MD5 considered harmful Nick Hilliard (Jan 31)
- Re: MD5 considered harmful harbor235 (Jan 31)
- Re: MD5 considered harmful Lee (Jan 31)
- Re: MD5? Joel jaeggli (Jan 27)
- RE: MD5? George Bonser (Jan 27)