It is a pleasant surprise for many (us included) that Microsoft implemented support for the RDNSS (RFC 8106) option in Router Advertisements beginning with the Windows 10 Creators Update. Interestingly, I wasn’t able to find any official documents from Microsoft stating this. As we are involved in a lot of IPv6 related projects for our customers, the lack of RDNSS support for Windows and DHCPv6 for Android is a major pain point when implementing IPv6 in mixed client segments, as you need to implement both mechanisms to ensure that all clients do get the relevant network parameters. I won’t beat on the dead horse, but Microsoft’s decision is a huge step in the right direction and one can hope that one day Google finds a “compelling use case” to implement at least stateless DHCPv6 for Android. Continue reading “One Step Closer – RDNSS (RFC 8106) Support in Windows 10 Creators Update”
In this post I’ll discuss configuration approaches for systems which usually have been configured with “static” IP parameters in the IPv4 age/context (like servers in data centers). When it comes to IPv6 there are more options and we’ll have a look at their implications and potential advantages/disadvantages.
Since BlackNurse was released on 10th of November, we asked ourselves whether this problem does also apply to ICMPv6 traffic. To answer this question, Christian Tanck (one of our students) build a lab with several firewall appliances. Kudos to him for testing and the following blog post.
As we all know an IPv6 enabled host can have multiple addresses. In order to select a source address for a to-be established outbound connection, operating systems implement a source address selection mechanism that evaluates multiple source address candidates and selects the (potentially) best candidate. Criteria for this selection are defined in RFC6724 (which obsoletes RFC 3484).
After seeing Christopher’s post I decided to create a proof using GNS3 and Virtualbox.
The aim is to perform the exact attacking using Antonios Atlasis’ Chiron tools and run a Wireshark packet capture to prove the hop limit drops below 255.
Tomorrow, I will join a meeting where I’m expected to contribute, amongst others, to a discussion on the impact of IPv6 on threat intelligence. To prepare for that I started putting together some thoughts & ideas on the topic, and I even thought I might share this in a post (the one you read right now ;-), not least to, maybe, stimulate a discussion.
As you may have already noticed, Cisco released an urgent security advisory describing an IPv6 Neighbor Discovery DoS Vulnerability in several flavors of Cisco’s operating systems. Currently IOS-XR, XE and NX-OS are affected while ASA and “classic” IOS are under investigation. At first glance, it might look like yet another IPv6 DoS vulnerability. Looking closer, Cisco is mentioning an unauthenticated, remote attacker due to insufficient processing logic for crafted IPv6 NDP packets that are sent to an affected device. Following the public discussion about the vulnerability, it seems that these packets will reach the, probably low rate-limited, LPTS filter/queue on IOS XR devices “crowding” out legitimate NDP packets resulting in a DoS for IPv6 traffic, or in general a high CPU load as these packets will be processed by the CPU. More details are currently not available, but this might indicate the affected systems aren’t doing proper message validation checks on NDP packets (in addition to the LPTS filter/queue problem).
In November 2014, after quite some controversy in the IETF OPSEC working group (for those interested look at the archives), the InformationalRFC 7404 “Using Only Link-Local Addressing inside an IPv6 Network” was published. It is authored by Michael Behringer and Eric Vyncke and discusses the advantages & disadvantages of an approach using “only link-local addresses on infrastructure links between routers”.