DOCSLIB.ORG

Performance Evaluation of Ipv6 and the Role of Ipsec in Encrypting Data

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Performance Evaluation of Ipv6 and the Role of Ipsec in Encrypting Data Performance Evaluation of IPv6 and the Role of IPsec in Encrypting Data by Yasser Alhoaimel Bachelor of Science in Computer Information System College of Computer and Information Technology Shaqra University 2014 A thesis submitted to the College of Engineering and Science of Florida Institute of Technology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Computer Information Systems Melbourne, Florida May, 2019 Copyright Copyright Statement All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission requests, find the information below to request a permission from the publisher [25]. Yasser Alhoaimel King Abdulaziz St. Ex.5 Riyadh, Saudi Arabia Mobile: +966595111130 [email protected] I, Yasser Alhoaimel authorize Florida Institute of Technology to grant permission to make single copies and publish this research whether locally or internationally. We the undersigned committee hereby approve the attached thesis, “Performance Evaluation of IPv6 and the Role of IPsec in Encrypting Data” by Yasser Alhoaimel. __________________________________________________ David LeVan, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Computer Sciences Committee Chair _________________________________________________ Tiauw Hiong Go, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Aerospace Engineering Outside Committee Member _________________________________________________ Walter Bond, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Computer Sciences Committee Member _________________________________________________ Philip Bernhard, Ph.D. Associate Professor and Department Head Computer Engineering and Sciences Abstract Performance Evaluation of IPv6 and the Role of IPsec in Encrypting Data Author: Yasser Alhoaimel Major advisor: David O. LeVan, Ph. D. Objectives This research concentrates on IPv6 security and its technical aspects. The performance of IPv6 has carefully evaluated, tested, and analyzed. Beyond comparing IPv4 and IPv6 in terms of security, this thesis does not focus on IPv4; preferably, the priority is to concentrate on the security basis of IPv6. The comparison was based on previous researches that can be found in the references section. Furthermore, the role of IPsec in encrypting data is another main objective of this research and is specifically explained. This research demonstrates how IPsec is used in encrypting data so that IPv6 extension headers will be demonstrated and examined. IPv4 and IPv6 have impacts and problems. Therefore, the end of this thesis contains an implementation, investigation, and examination of the problems and results with IPv4 and IPv6. Key Results The key results are specified in Chapters 8 and 9, which contain implementations of IPv4, IPv6, IPsec over IPv4, and IPsec over IPv6. iii Table of Contents COPYRIGHT .............................................................................................................................. IV COPYRIGHT STATEMENT .......................................................................................................... IV ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................ III OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................................................. III KEY RESULTS ........................................................................................................................... III TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................................... IV LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................ VIII LIST OF COMMON ACRONYMS .................................................................................................... XI ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................................... XII DEDICATION ..................................................................................................................................... XIII CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM ..................................................................................................... 1 1.3 AIMS AND OBJECTIVE OF THE RESEARCH STUDY ................................................................... 2 CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................ 4 2.1 THESIS BACKGROUND........................................................................................................... 4 2.2 INTERNET PROTOCOL VERSIONS ............................................................................................ 4 2.2.1 INTERNET PROTOCOL SECURITY (IPSEC) ............................................................................. 4 2.3 THESIS TOOLS ...................................................................................................................... 5 2.4 RESEARCH FLOW .................................................................................................................. 6 2.5 EXPERIMENTAL PLAN ........................................................................................................... 7 2.6 SCOPE AND CONSTRAINTS OF THE RESEARCH STUDY ............................................................. 8 2.7 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ......................................................................................................... 8 2.8 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROPOSED RESEARCH .......................................................................... 9 iv CHAPTER 3 ELEMENTS OF IPV6 ................................................................................................. 10 3.1 TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF IPV6 ............................................................................................. 10 3.2 DATA ENCRYPTION/PROTECTION IN IPV6 ............................................................................ 11 3.2.1 AH AND ESP PROTOCOLS ................................................................................................ 11 3.3 HEADER FORMAT OF IPV6 .................................................................................................. 12 CHAPTER 4 IPV6 SECURITY ISSUES .......................................................................................... 14 4.1 DUAL-STACK APPROACH .................................................................................................... 14 4.2 NAT-FREE NETWORK ARCHITECTURE ................................................................................ 14 4.3 LACK OF SUPPORT .............................................................................................................. 14 CHAPTER 5 IPV6 SECURITY CHALLENGES ............................................................................ 15 5.1 THREATS IN IPV6 NETWORKS.............................................................................................. 15 5.2 THREATS IN IPV6 ROUTING HEADERS.................................................................................. 15 CHAPTER 6 IPV6: CHANGES AND ADDITIONS....................................................................... 16 6.1 ADDRESSES ................................................................................................................ 16 6.2 MULTIPLE ADDRESSES PER HOST ................................................................................ 16 6.3 HEADER FIXED LENGTH.............................................................................................. 17 6.4 ND INSTEAD OF ARP PROTOCOL ................................................................................ 17 CHAPTER 7 IPV6: USAGE AND ADOPTION .............................................................................. 18 7.1 IPV6 USAGE: ...................................................................................................................... 18 7.2 IPV6 ADOPTION: ................................................................................................................. 19 CHAPTER 8 DELIVERABLES AND RESULTS ........................................................................... 20 8.1 IPV4 TOPOLOGY ................................................................................................................. 20 8.1.1 IPV4 AND ITS HEADER ..................................................................................................... 21 8.2 ADDRESSING ...................................................................................................................... 21 8.3 IPV4 IP ADDRESS CLASSES ................................................................................................. 22 8.4 IPV4 CONFIGURATION ........................................................................................................ 25 8.4.1 ROUTER 1 CONFIGURATION .............................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Efficient, Dos-Resistant, Secure Key Exchange
    Efficient, DoS-Resistant, Secure Key Exchange for Internet Protocols∗ William Aiello Steven M. Bellovin Matt Blaze AT&T Labs Research AT&T Labs Research AT&T Labs Research [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Ran Canetti John Ioannidis Angelos D. Keromytis IBM T.J. Watson Research Center AT&T Labs Research Columbia University [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Omer Reingold AT&T Labs Research [email protected] Categories and Subject Descriptors While it might be possible to “patch” the IKE protocol to fix C.2.0 [Security and Protection]: Key Agreement Protocols some of these problems, it may be perferable to construct a new protocol that more narrorwly addresses the requirements “from the ground up.” We set out to engineer a new key exchange protocol General Terms specifically for Internet security applications. We call our new pro- Security, Reliability, Standardization tocol “JFK,” which stands for “Just Fast Keying.” Keywords 1.1 Design Goals We seek a protocol with the following characteristics: Cryptography, Denial of Service Attacks Security: No one other than the participants may have access to ABSTRACT the generated key. We describe JFK, a new key exchange protocol, primarily designed PFS: It must approach Perfect Forward Secrecy. for use in the IP Security Architecture. It is simple, efficient, and secure; we sketch a proof of the latter property. JFK also has a Privacy: It must preserve the privacy of the initiator and/or re- number of novel engineering parameters that permit a variety of sponder, insofar as possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Network Access Control and Cloud Security
    Network Access Control and Cloud Security Raj Jain Washington University in Saint Louis Saint Louis, MO 63130 [email protected] Audio/Video recordings of this lecture are available at: http://www.cse.wustl.edu/~jain/cse571-17/ Washington University in St. Louis http://www.cse.wustl.edu/~jain/cse571-17/ ©2017 Raj Jain 16-1 Overview 1. Network Access Control (NAC) 2. RADIUS 3. Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) 4. EAP over LAN (EAPOL) 5. 802.1X 6. Cloud Security These slides are based partly on Lawrie Brown’s slides supplied with William Stallings’s book “Cryptography and Network Security: Principles and Practice,” 7th Ed, 2017. Washington University in St. Louis http://www.cse.wustl.edu/~jain/cse571-17/ ©2017 Raj Jain 16-2 Network Access Control (NAC) AAA: Authentication: Is the user legit? Supplicant Authenticator Authentication Server Authorization: What is he allowed to do? Accounting: Keep track of usage Components: Supplicant: User Authenticator: Network edge device Authentication Server: Remote Access Server (RAS) or Policy Server Backend policy and access control Washington University in St. Louis http://www.cse.wustl.edu/~jain/cse571-17/ ©2017 Raj Jain 16-3 Network Access Enforcement Methods IEEE 802.1X used in Ethernet, WiFi Firewall DHCP Management VPN VLANs Washington University in St. Louis http://www.cse.wustl.edu/~jain/cse571-17/ ©2017 Raj Jain 16-4 RADIUS Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service Central point for Authorization, Accounting, and Auditing data ⇒ AAA server Network Access servers get authentication info from RADIUS servers Allows RADIUS Proxy Servers ⇒ ISP roaming alliances Uses UDP: In case of server failure, the request must be re-sent to backup ⇒ Application level retransmission required TCP takes too long to indicate failure Proxy RADIUS RADIUS Network Remote Access User Customer Access ISP Net Server Network Server Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RADIUS Washington University in St.
    [Show full text]
  • Ipv6-Ipsec And
    IPSec and SSL Virtual Private Networks ITU/APNIC/MICT IPv6 Security Workshop 23rd – 27th May 2016 Bangkok Last updated 29 June 2014 1 Acknowledgment p Content sourced from n Merike Kaeo of Double Shot Security n Contact: [email protected] Virtual Private Networks p Creates a secure tunnel over a public network p Any VPN is not automagically secure n You need to add security functionality to create secure VPNs n That means using firewalls for access control n And probably IPsec or SSL/TLS for confidentiality and data origin authentication 3 VPN Protocols p IPsec (Internet Protocol Security) n Open standard for VPN implementation n Operates on the network layer Other VPN Implementations p MPLS VPN n Used for large and small enterprises n Pseudowire, VPLS, VPRN p GRE Tunnel n Packet encapsulation protocol developed by Cisco n Not encrypted n Implemented with IPsec p L2TP IPsec n Uses L2TP protocol n Usually implemented along with IPsec n IPsec provides the secure channel, while L2TP provides the tunnel What is IPSec? Internet IPSec p IETF standard that enables encrypted communication between peers: n Consists of open standards for securing private communications n Network layer encryption ensuring data confidentiality, integrity, and authentication n Scales from small to very large networks What Does IPsec Provide ? p Confidentiality….many algorithms to choose from p Data integrity and source authentication n Data “signed” by sender and “signature” verified by the recipient n Modification of data can be detected by signature “verification”
    [Show full text]
  • Mist Teleworker ME
    MIST TELEWORKER GUIDE ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Experience the corporate network @ home DOCUMENT OWNERS: ​ ​ ​ ​ Robert Young – [email protected] ​ Slava Dementyev – [email protected] ​ Jan Van de Laer – [email protected] ​ 1 Table of Contents Solution Overview 3 How it works 5 Configuration Steps 6 Setup Mist Edge 6 Configure and prepare the SSID 15 Enable Wired client connection via ETH1 / Module port of the AP 16 Enable Split Tunneling for the Corp SSID 17 Create a Site for Remote Office Workers 18 Claim an AP and ship it to Employee’s location 18 Troubleshooting 20 Packet Captures on the Mist Edge 23 2 Solution Overview Mist Teleworker solution leverages Mist Edge for extending a corporate network to remote office workers using an IPSEC secured L2TPv3 tunnel from a remote Mist AP. In addition, MistEdge provides an additional RadSec service to securely proxy authentication requests from remote APs to provide the same user experience as inside the office. WIth Mist Teleworker solution customers can extend their corporate WLAN to employee homes whenever they need to work remotely, providing the same level of security and access to corporate resources, while extending visibility into user network experience and streamlining IT operations even when employees are not in the office. What are the benefits of the Mist Teleworker solution with Mist Edge compared to all the other alternatives? Agility: ● Zero Touch Provisioning - no AP pre-staging required, support for flexible all home coverage with secure Mesh ● Exceptional support with minimal support - leverage Mist SLEs and Marvis Actions Security: ● Traffic Isolation - same level of traffic control as in the office.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 12: Security Systems Using Public Keys 11.1 PGP 11.2 SSL/TLS 11.3 IPSEC Stallings: Ch 16,17
    T-79.4501 Cryptography and Data Security Lecture 12: Security systems using public keys 11.1 PGP 11.2 SSL/TLS 11.3 IPSEC Stallings: Ch 16,17 1 Pretty Good Privacy • Email encryption program • Bottom–up approach to the distribution of trust • Each user acts as his/her own CA and signs the public keys of other users • User can accept authenticity of a public key based on recommendation by a third trusted user • RSA public key encryption used for distribution of session keys *) • Digital signatures produced by RSA or DSA signature algorithms • Hash functions are MD5 and SHA-1 • Symmetric encryption performed using IDEA in CFB mode (self- synchronising stream cipher) • Public keys held in ”Key-ring” • Revocation of public keys is a problem *) A data encryption protocol, where the data is encrypted using symmetric encryption, and the symmetric encryption key is encrypted using public key encryption, is called as ”hybrid encryption” 2 1 Secure Sockets Layer /Transport Layer Security • SSL (by Netscape) adds security to the TCP level of the Internet Protocol stack • Reliable end-to-end service. • TLS developed by IETF is basically equivalent to SSL v 3.1 Structure: SSL SSL Change SSL Handshake Cipher Spec Alert HTTP Protocol Protocol Protocol SSL Record Protocol TCP IP • Hypertext Transfer Protocol (Web client/server interaction) can operate on top of SSL (https://...) 3 SSL Record Protocol Application data fragment compressed fragment MAC added encrypted SSL record header appended 4 2 SSL Record Protocol Crypto • The MAC is similar to HMAC (indeed, an early version of HMAC) with the difference that OPAD and IPAD fields are concatenated to the key data (not xored as in HMAC).
    [Show full text]
  • Configuring Secure Shell
    Configuring Secure Shell The Secure Shell (SSH) feature is an application and a protocol that provides a secure replacement to the Berkeley r-tools. The protocol secures sessions using standard cryptographic mechanisms, and the application can be used similarly to the Berkeley rexec and rsh tools. Two versions of SSH are available: SSH Version 1 and SSH Version 2. • Finding Feature Information, page 1 • Prerequisites for Configuring Secure Shell, page 1 • Restrictions for Configuring Secure Shell, page 2 • Information about SSH, page 2 • How to Configure Secure Shell, page 5 • Configuration Examples for Secure Shell, page 16 • Additional References for Secure Shell, page 18 • Feature Information for SSH, page 18 Finding Feature Information Your software release may not support all the features documented in this module. For the latest caveats and feature information, see Bug Search Tool and the release notes for your platform and software release. To find information about the features documented in this module, and to see a list of the releases in which each feature is supported, see the feature information table at the end of this module. Use Cisco Feature Navigator to find information about platform support and Cisco software image support. To access Cisco Feature Navigator, go to http://www.cisco.com/go/cfn. An account on Cisco.com is not required. Prerequisites for Configuring Secure Shell The following are the prerequisites for configuring the switch for secure shell (SSH): • For SSH to work, the switch needs an Rivest, Shamir, and Adleman (RSA) public/private key pair. This is the same with Secure Copy Protocol (SCP), which relies on SSH for its secure transport.
    [Show full text]
  • Ipv6 Security: Myths & Legends
    IPv6 security: myths & legends Paul Ebersman – [email protected] 21 Apr 2015 NANOG on the Road – Boston So many new security issues with IPv6! Or are there… IPv6 Security issues • Same problem, different name • A few myths & misconceptions • Actual new issues • FUD (Fear Uncertainty & Doubt) Round up the usual suspects! Remember these? • ARP cache poisoning • P2p ping pong attacks • Rogue DHCP ARP cache poisoning • Bad guy broadcasts fake ARP • Hosts on subnet put bad entry in ARP Cache • Result: MiM or DOS Ping pong attack • P2P link with subnet > /31 • Bad buy sends packet for addr in subnet but not one of two routers • Result: Link clogs with routers sending packet back and forth Rogue DHCP • Client broadcasts DHCP request • Bad guy sends DHCP offer w/his “bad” router as default GW • Client now sends all traffic to bad GW • Result: MiM or DOS Look similar? • Neighbor cache corruption • P2p ping pong attacks • Rogue DHCP + rogue RA Solutions? • Lock down local wire • /127s for p2p links (RFC 6164) • RA Guard (RFC 6105) And now for something completely different! So what is new? • Extension header chains • Packet/Header fragmentation • Predictable fragment headers • Atomic fragments The IPv4 Packet 14 The IPv6 Packet 15 Fragmentation • Minimum 1280 bytes • Only source host can fragment • Destination must get all fragments • What happens if someone plays with fragments? IPv6 Extension Header Chains • No limit on length • Deep packet inspection bogs down • Confuses stateless firewalls • Fragments a problem • draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-09
    [Show full text]
  • The State of the Authenticated Encryption 1
    Ø Ñ ÅØÑØÐ ÈÙ ÐØÓÒ× DOI: 10.1515/tmmp-2016-0038 Tatra Mt. Math. Publ. 67 (2016), 167–190 THE STATE OF THE AUTHENTICATED ENCRYPTION Damian Vizar´ ABSTRACT. Ensuring confidentiality and integrity of communication remains among the most important goals of cryptography. The notion of authenticated encryption marries these two security goals in a single symmetric-key, crypto- graphic primitive. A lot of effort has been invested in authenticated encryption during the fifteen years of its existence. The recent Competition for Authenticated Encryption: Security, Applicability, and Robustness (CAESAR) has boosted the research activity in this area even more. As a result, the area of authenticated encryption boasts numerous results, both theoretically and practically oriented, and perhaps even greater number of constructions of authenticated encryption schemes. We explore the current landscape of results on authenticated encryption. We review the CEASAR competition and its candidates, the most popular con- struction principles, and various design goals for authenticated encryption, many of which appeared during the CAESAR competition. We also take a closer look at the candidate Offset Merkle-Damg˚ard (OMD). 1. Introduction Perhaps the two most fundamental goals of symmetric-key cryptography are providing confidentiality (privacy) and authenticity (together with integrity1) of messages that are being sent over an insecure channel. These two security properties of communication have traditionally been studied separately; they were formalized in separate notions [13], [14], and achieved by separate primitives (e.g., CBC mode for confidentiality and CBCMAC for authentication). c 2016 Mathematical Institute, Slovak Academy of Sciences. 2010 M a t h e m a t i c s Subject Classification: 94A60.
    [Show full text]
  • Ipv6 – What Is It, Why Is It Important, and Who Is in Charge? … Answers to Common Questions from Policy Makers, Executives and Other Non­Technical Readers
    IPv6 – What is it, why is it important, and who is in charge? … answers to common questions from policy makers, executives and other non­technical readers. A factual paper prepared for and endorsed by the Chief Executive Officers of ICANN and all the Regional Internet Registries, October 2009. 1. What is IPv6? “IP” is the Internet Protocol, the set of digital communication codes which underlies the Internet infrastructure. IP allows the flow of packets of data between any pair of points on the network, providing the basic service upon which the entire Internet is built. Without IP, the Internet as we know it would not exist. Currently the Internet makes use of IP version 4, or IPv4, which is now reaching the limits of its capacity to address additional devices. IPv6 is the “next generation” of IP, which provides a vastly expanded address space. Using IPv6, the Internet will be able to grow to millions of times its current size, in terms of the numbers of people, devices and objects connected to it1. 2. Just how big is IPv6? To answer this question, we must compare the IPv6 address architecture with that of IPv4. The IPv4 address has 32 bits, allowing today’s Internet to connect up to around four billion devices. By contrast, IPv6 has an address of 128 bits. Because each additional bit doubles the size of the address space, an extra 96 bits increases the theoretical size of the address space by many trillions of times. For comparison, if IPv4 were represented as a golf ball, then IPv6 would be approaching the size of the Sun.2 IPv6 is certainly not infinite, but it is not going to run out any time soon.
    [Show full text]
  • How Secure Is Textsecure?
    How Secure is TextSecure? Tilman Frosch∗y, Christian Mainkay, Christoph Badery, Florian Bergsmay,Jorg¨ Schwenky, Thorsten Holzy ∗G DATA Advanced Analytics GmbH firstname.lastname @gdata.de f g yHorst Gortz¨ Institute for IT-Security Ruhr University Bochum firstname.lastname @rub.de f g Abstract—Instant Messaging has gained popularity by users without providing any kind of authentication. Today, many for both private and business communication as low-cost clients implement only client-to-server encryption via TLS, short message replacement on mobile devices. However, until although security mechanisms like Off the Record (OTR) recently, most mobile messaging apps did not protect confi- communication [3] or SCIMP [4] providing end-to-end con- dentiality or integrity of the messages. fidentiality and integrity are available. Press releases about mass surveillance performed by intelli- With the advent of smartphones, low-cost short-message gence services such as NSA and GCHQ motivated many people alternatives that use the data channel to communicate, to use alternative messaging solutions to preserve the security gained popularity. However, in the context of mobile ap- and privacy of their communication on the Internet. Initially plications, the assumption of classical instant messaging, fueled by Facebook’s acquisition of the hugely popular mobile for instance, that both parties are online at the time the messaging app WHATSAPP, alternatives claiming to provide conversation takes place, is no longer necessarily valid. secure communication experienced a significant increase of new Instead, the mobile context requires solutions that allow for users. asynchronous communication, where a party may be offline A messaging app that claims to provide secure instant for a prolonged time.
    [Show full text]
  • Nist Sp 800-77 Rev. 1 Guide to Ipsec Vpns
    NIST Special Publication 800-77 Revision 1 Guide to IPsec VPNs Elaine Barker Quynh Dang Sheila Frankel Karen Scarfone Paul Wouters This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-77r1 C O M P U T E R S E C U R I T Y NIST Special Publication 800-77 Revision 1 Guide to IPsec VPNs Elaine Barker Quynh Dang Sheila Frankel* Computer Security Division Information Technology Laboratory Karen Scarfone Scarfone Cybersecurity Clifton, VA Paul Wouters Red Hat Toronto, ON, Canada *Former employee; all work for this publication was done while at NIST This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-77r1 June 2020 U.S. Department of Commerce Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., Secretary National Institute of Standards and Technology Walter Copan, NIST Director and Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology Authority This publication has been developed by NIST in accordance with its statutory responsibilities under the Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA) of 2014, 44 U.S.C. § 3551 et seq., Public Law (P.L.) 113-283. NIST is responsible for developing information security standards and guidelines, including minimum requirements for federal information systems, but such standards and guidelines shall not apply to national security systems without the express approval of appropriate federal officials exercising policy authority over such systems. This guideline is consistent with the requirements of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-130. Nothing in this publication should be taken to contradict the standards and guidelines made mandatory and binding on federal agencies by the Secretary of Commerce under statutory authority.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for the Secure Deployment of Ipv6
    Special Publication 800-119 Guidelines for the Secure Deployment of IPv6 Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Sheila Frankel Richard Graveman John Pearce Mark Rooks NIST Special Publication 800-119 Guidelines for the Secure Deployment of IPv6 Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Sheila Frankel Richard Graveman John Pearce Mark Rooks C O M P U T E R S E C U R I T Y Computer Security Division Information Technology Laboratory National Institute of Standards and Technology Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8930 December 2010 U.S. Department of Commerce Gary Locke, Secretary National Institute of Standards and Technology Dr. Patrick D. Gallagher, Director GUIDELINES FOR THE SECURE DEPLOYMENT OF IPV6 Reports on Computer Systems Technology The Information Technology Laboratory (ITL) at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) promotes the U.S. economy and public welfare by providing technical leadership for the nation’s measurement and standards infrastructure. ITL develops tests, test methods, reference data, proof of concept implementations, and technical analysis to advance the development and productive use of information technology. ITL’s responsibilities include the development of technical, physical, administrative, and management standards and guidelines for the cost-effective security and privacy of sensitive unclassified information in Federal computer systems. This Special Publication 800-series reports on ITL’s research, guidance, and outreach efforts in computer security and its collaborative activities with industry, government, and academic organizations. National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 800-119 Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Spec. Publ. 800-119, 188 pages (Dec. 2010) Certain commercial entities, equipment, or materials may be identified in this document in order to describe an experimental procedure or concept adequately.
    [Show full text]