Re: [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: [IPv6] Why folks are blocking IPv6 extension headers? (Episode 1000 and counting) (Linux DoS)

If only there were some *principle* to guide operators in better
understanding when it might be worth spending their time blocking something
that is not a *specific credible threat*

Oh wait... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle

Now, where there is a specific, credible threat *absolutely* block what you
know. Otherwise, kernels, even on lightbulbs, are really good at ignoring
packets. Otherwise *you* are the DOS attack



--ckg

On Fri, May 26, 2023, 10:31 Andrew Campling <[email protected]>
wrote:

> This is a really good thread!
>
>
>
> For me, it highlights that there appears to be a gulf in understanding, or
> at least working assumptions, between developers and those responsible for
> network (public or private) security.  I suspect that gulf might narrow
> somewhat if developers faced some of the same consequences that enterprises
> and public network operators face in the event of security breaches – I’m
> thinking here about those with compliance obligations such as the finance
> sector, those in areas defined as part of critical national infrastructure
> and those covered by more general regulations such as NIS2.
>
>
>
> Greater involvement by enterprise and public network CISOs would help
> inject more understanding of current practice security and operational
> considerations into protocol development activity to augment the input of
> those within this community that also have that knowledge.  For example, it
> would be good to see the reaction of CISOs to suggestions that security
> should be left to hosts / endpoints rather than using a defence-in-depth
> approach which also employs network and perimeter defences, looks for
> indicators of compromise etc.
>
>
>
> Given the relative lack of diversity within the IETF community, hindsight
> suggests to me that it would have been great to see one or more
> IETF-sponsored panel discussions at events like the recent RSA Conference
> to debate some of the points raised on this thread with the wider security
> practitioner community, many of whom don’t follow developments at the IETF
> (I can confirm this latter point from personal experience as I asked other
> attendees at RSAC 23 and found less than a handful of people that had
> involvement in the IETF, either directly or via a team member).
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>