| < draft-ietf-opsec-current-practices-00.txt | draft-ietf-opsec-current-practices-01.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OPSEC M. Kaeo | OPSEC M. Kaeo | |||
| Internet-Draft Double Shot Security, Inc. | Internet-Draft Double Shot Security, Inc. | |||
| Expires: August 14, 2005 February 10, 2005 | Expires: January 18, 2006 July 17, 2005 | |||
| Operational Security Current Practices | Operational Security Current Practices | |||
| draft-ietf-opsec-current-practices-00 | draft-ietf-opsec-current-practices-01 | |||
| Status of this Memo | Status of this Memo | |||
| This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions | By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any | |||
| of Section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each | applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware | |||
| author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of | have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes | |||
| which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of | aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. | |||
| which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with | ||||
| RFC 3668. | ||||
| Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | |||
| Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that | Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that | |||
| other groups may also distribute working documents as | other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- | |||
| Internet-Drafts. | Drafts. | |||
| Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | |||
| and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | |||
| time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | |||
| material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | |||
| The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at | The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at | |||
| http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. | http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. | |||
| The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at | The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at | |||
| http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. | http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. | |||
| This Internet-Draft will expire on August 14, 2005. | This Internet-Draft will expire on January 18, 2006. | |||
| Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
| Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). | Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). | |||
| Abstract | Abstract | |||
| This document is a survey of the current practices used in today's | This document is a survey of the current practices used in today's | |||
| large ISP operational networks to secure layer 2 and layer 3 | large ISP operational networks to secure layer 2 and layer 3 | |||
| infrastructure devices. The information listed here is the result of | infrastructure devices. The information listed here is the result of | |||
| information gathered from people directly responsible for defining | information gathered from people directly responsible for defining | |||
| and implementing secure infrastructures in Internet Service Provider | and implementing secure infrastructures in Internet Service Provider | |||
| environments. | environments. | |||
| Table of Contents | Table of Contents | |||
| 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | |||
| 1.1 Threat Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 1.1 Threat Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | |||
| 1.2 Operational Security Impact from Threats . . . . . . . . . 3 | 1.2 Operational Security Impact from Threats . . . . . . . . . 3 | |||
| 1.3 Document Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 1.3 Document Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | |||
| 1.4 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 1.4 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | |||
| 2. Protected Operational Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 2. Protected Operational Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | |||
| 2.1 Device Physical Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 2.1 Device Physical Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | |||
| 2.2 Device In-Band Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 2.2 Device In-Band Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||
| 2.3 Device Out-of-Band Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | 2.3 Device Out-of-Band Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | |||
| 2.4 Data Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | 2.4 Data Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 | |||
| 2.5 Routing Control Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 | 2.5 Routing Control Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 | |||
| 2.6 Software Upgrades and Configuration Integrity / | 2.6 Software Upgrades and Configuration Integrity / | |||
| Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 | Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 | |||
| 2.7 Logging Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 | 2.7 Logging Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | |||
| 2.8 Filtering Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | 2.8 Denial of Service Tracking / Tracing . . . . . . . . . . . 30 | |||
| 2.9 Denial of Service Tracking / Tracing . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 | |||
| 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 | 4. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 | |||
| 4. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 | Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 | |||
| Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 | A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 | |||
| A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 | B. Protocol Specific Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 | |||
| Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 30 | Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 36 | |||
| 1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
| Security practices are well understood by the network operators who | Security practices are well understood by the network operators who | |||
| have for many years gone through the growing pains of securing their | have for many years gone through the growing pains of securing their | |||
| network infrastructures. However, there does not exist a written | network infrastructures. However, there does not exist a written | |||
| document that enumerates these security practices. Network attacks | document that enumerates these security practices. Network attacks | |||
| are continually increasing and although it is not necessarily the | are continually increasing and although it is not necessarily the | |||
| role of an ISP to act as the Internet police, each ISP has to ensure | role of an ISP to act as the Internet police, each ISP has to ensure | |||
| that certain security practices are followed to ensure that their | that certain security practices are followed to ensure that their | |||
| skipping to change at page 3, line 33 ¶ | skipping to change at page 3, line 33 ¶ | |||
| network availability and reliability. Securing the actual data | network availability and reliability. Securing the actual data | |||
| traffic is outside the scope of the conducted survey. This document | traffic is outside the scope of the conducted survey. This document | |||
| focuses solely on documenting currently deployed security mechanisms | focuses solely on documenting currently deployed security mechanisms | |||
| for layer 2 and layer 3 network infrastructure devices. | for layer 2 and layer 3 network infrastructure devices. | |||
| 1.2 Operational Security Impact from Threats | 1.2 Operational Security Impact from Threats | |||
| A threat is a potential for a security violation, which exists when | A threat is a potential for a security violation, which exists when | |||
| there is a circumstance, capability, action, or event that could | there is a circumstance, capability, action, or event that could | |||
| breach security and cause harm [RFC2828]. Every operational network | breach security and cause harm [RFC2828]. Every operational network | |||
| is subject to a multitude of threat actions, or attacks, i.e. an | is subject to a multitude of threat actions, or attacks, i.e. an | |||
| assault on system security that derives from an intelligent act that | assault on system security that derives from an intelligent act that | |||
| is a deliberate attempt to evade security services and violate the | is a deliberate attempt to evade security services and violate the | |||
| security policy of a system [RFC2828]. These attacks can be sourced | security policy of a system [RFC2828]. These attacks can be sourced | |||
| in a variety of ways: | in a variety of ways: | |||
| Active vs passive attacks | Active vs passive attacks | |||
| An active attack involves writing data to the network. It is | An active attack involves writing data to the network. It is | |||
| common practice in active attacks to disguise one's address and | common practice in active attacks to disguise one's address and | |||
| conceal the identity of the traffic sender. A passive attack | conceal the identity of the traffic sender. A passive attack | |||
| involves only reading information off the network. This is | involves only reading information off the network. This is | |||
| possible if the attacker has control of a host in the | possible if the attacker has control of a host in the | |||
| communications path between two victim machines or has compromised | communications path between two victim machines or has compromised | |||
| the routing infrastructure to specifically arrange that traffic | the routing infrastructure to specifically arrange that traffic | |||
| pass through a compromised machine. In general, the goal of a | pass through a compromised machine. In general, the goal of a | |||
| passive attack is to obtain information that the sender and | passive attack is to obtain information that the sender and | |||
| receiver would prefer to remain private. [RFC3552] | receiver would prefer to remain private. [RFC3552] | |||
| skipping to change at page 4, line 6 ¶ | skipping to change at page 4, line 6 ¶ | |||
| conceal the identity of the traffic sender. A passive attack | conceal the identity of the traffic sender. A passive attack | |||
| involves only reading information off the network. This is | involves only reading information off the network. This is | |||
| possible if the attacker has control of a host in the | possible if the attacker has control of a host in the | |||
| communications path between two victim machines or has compromised | communications path between two victim machines or has compromised | |||
| the routing infrastructure to specifically arrange that traffic | the routing infrastructure to specifically arrange that traffic | |||
| pass through a compromised machine. In general, the goal of a | pass through a compromised machine. In general, the goal of a | |||
| passive attack is to obtain information that the sender and | passive attack is to obtain information that the sender and | |||
| receiver would prefer to remain private. [RFC3552] | receiver would prefer to remain private. [RFC3552] | |||
| On-path vs off-path attacks | On-path vs off-path attacks | |||
| In order for a datagram to be transmitted from one host to | In order for a datagram to be transmitted from one host to | |||
| another, it generally must traverse some set of intermediate links | another, it generally must traverse some set of intermediate links | |||
| and gateways. Such gateways are naturally able to read, modify, | and routers. Such routers are naturally able to read, modify, or | |||
| or remove any datagram transmitted along that path. This makes it | remove any datagram transmitted along that path. This makes it | |||
| much easier to mount a wide variety of attacks if you are on-path. | much easier to mount a wide variety of attacks if you are on-path. | |||
| Off-path hosts can transmit arbitrary datagrams that appear to | Off-path hosts can transmit arbitrary datagrams that appear to | |||
| come from any hosts but cannot necessarily receive datagrams | come from any hosts but cannot necessarily receive datagrams | |||
| intended for other hosts. Thus, if an attack depends on being | intended for other hosts. Thus, if an attack depends on being | |||
| able to receive data, off-path hosts must first subvert the | able to receive data, off-path hosts must first subvert the | |||
| topology in order to place themselves on-path. This is by no | topology in order to place themselves on-path. This is by no | |||
| means impossible but is not necessarily trivial. [RFC3552] | means impossible but is not necessarily trivial. [RFC3552] | |||
| Insider or outsider attacks | Insider or outsider attacks | |||
| An "insider attack" is one which is initiated from inside a given | An "insider attack" is one which is initiated from inside a given | |||
| security perimeter, by an entity that is authorized to access | security perimeter, by an entity that is authorized to access | |||
| system resources but uses them in a way not approved by those who | system resources but uses them in a way not approved by those who | |||
| granted the authorization. An "outside attack" is initiated from | granted the authorization. An "outside attack" is initiated from | |||
| outside the perimeter, by an unauthorized or illegitimate user of | outside the perimeter, by an unauthorized or illegitimate user of | |||
| the system. | the system. | |||
| Deliberate attacks vs unintentional events | Deliberate attacks vs unintentional events | |||
| A deliberate attack is one where a miscreant intentionally | A deliberate attack is one where a miscreant intentionally | |||
| performs an assault on system security. However, there are also | performs an assault on system security. However, there are also | |||
| instances where unintentional events cause the same harm yet are | instances where unintentional events cause the same harm yet are | |||
| performed without malice in mind. Configuration errors and | performed without malice in mind. Configuration errors and | |||
| software bugs can be as devastating to network availability as any | software bugs can be as devastating to network availability as any | |||
| deliberate attack on the network infrastructure. | deliberate attack on the network infrastructure. | |||
| The attack source can be a combination of any of the above, all of | The attack source can be a combination of any of the above, all of | |||
| which need to be considered when trying to ascertain what impact any | which need to be considered when trying to ascertain what impact any | |||
| attack can have on the availability and reliability of the network. | attack can have on the availability and reliability of the network. | |||
| It is nearly impossible to stop insider attacks or unintentional | It is nearly impossible to stop insider attacks or unintentional | |||
| events. However, if appropriate monitoring mechanisms are in place, | events. However, if appropriate monitoring mechanisms are in place, | |||
| these attacks can be as easily detected and mitigated as with any | these attacks can be as easily detected and mitigated as with any | |||
| other attack source. Any of the specific attacks discussed further | other attack source. Any of the specific attacks discussed further | |||
| in this document will elaborate on attacks which are sourced by an | in this document will elaborate on attacks which are sourced by an | |||
| "outsider" and are deliberate attacks. Some further elaboration will | "outsider" and are deliberate attacks. Some further elaboration will | |||
| be given to the feasibility of passive vs active and on-path vs | be given to the feasibility of passive vs active and on-path vs off- | |||
| off-path attacks to show the motivation behind deploying certain | path attacks to show the motivation behind deploying certain security | |||
| security features. | features. | |||
| The threat consequences are the security violations which results | The threat consequences are the security violations which results | |||
| from a threat action, i.e. an attack. These are typically | from a threat action, i.e. an attack. These are typically classified | |||
| classified as follows: | as follows: | |||
| (Unauthorized) Disclosure | (Unauthorized) Disclosure | |||
| A circumstance or event whereby an entity gains access to data for | A circumstance or event whereby an entity gains access to data for | |||
| which the entity is not authorized. | which the entity is not authorized. | |||
| Deception | Deception | |||
| A circumstance or event that may result in an authorized entity | A circumstance or event that may result in an authorized entity | |||
| receiving false data and believing it to be true. | receiving false data and believing it to be true. | |||
| Disruption | Disruption | |||
| A circumstance or event that interrupts or prevents the correct | A circumstance or event that interrupts or prevents the correct | |||
| operation of system services and functions. A broad variety of | operation of system services and functions. A broad variety of | |||
| attacks, collectively called denial of service attacks, threaten | attacks, collectively called denial of service attacks, threaten | |||
| the availability of systems and bandwidth to legitimate users. | the availability of systems and bandwidth to legitimate users. | |||
| Many such attacks are designed to consume machine resources, | Many such attacks are designed to consume machine resources, | |||
| making it difficult or impossible to serve legitimate users. | making it difficult or impossible to serve legitimate users. | |||
| Other attacks cause the target machine to crash, completely | Other attacks cause the target machine to crash, completely | |||
| denying service to users. | denying service to users. | |||
| Usurpation | Usurpation | |||
| skipping to change at page 7, line 50 ¶ | skipping to change at page 8, line 50 ¶ | |||
| For physical device security, equipment is kept in highly restrictive | For physical device security, equipment is kept in highly restrictive | |||
| environments. Only authorized users with card key badges have access | environments. Only authorized users with card key badges have access | |||
| to any of the physical locations that contain critical network | to any of the physical locations that contain critical network | |||
| infrastructure devices. These card-key systems keep track of who | infrastructure devices. These card-key systems keep track of who | |||
| accessed which location and at what time. | accessed which location and at what time. | |||
| All console access is always password protected and the login time is | All console access is always password protected and the login time is | |||
| set to time out after a specified amount of inactivity - typically | set to time out after a specified amount of inactivity - typically | |||
| between 3-10 minutes. Individual users are authentication to get | between 3-10 minutes. Individual users are authentication to get | |||
| basic access. For privileged (i.e. enable) access, a second | basic access. For privileged (i.e. enable) access, a second | |||
| authentication step needs to be completed. Typically all console | authentication step needs to be completed. Typically all console | |||
| access is provided via an out-of-band (OOB) management infrastructure | access is provided via an out-of-band (OOB) management infrastructure | |||
| which is discussed in the section on OOB management. | which is discussed in the section on OOB management. | |||
| 2.1.3 Security Services | 2.1.3 Security Services | |||
| The following security services are offered through the use of the | The following security services are offered through the use of the | |||
| practices described in the previous section: | practices described in the previous section: | |||
| o User Authentication - All individuals who have access to the | o User Authentication - All individuals who have access to the | |||
| skipping to change at page 8, line 14 ¶ | skipping to change at page 9, line 14 ¶ | |||
| which is discussed in the section on OOB management. | which is discussed in the section on OOB management. | |||
| 2.1.3 Security Services | 2.1.3 Security Services | |||
| The following security services are offered through the use of the | The following security services are offered through the use of the | |||
| practices described in the previous section: | practices described in the previous section: | |||
| o User Authentication - All individuals who have access to the | o User Authentication - All individuals who have access to the | |||
| physical facility are authenticated. Console access is | physical facility are authenticated. Console access is | |||
| authenticated. | authenticated. | |||
| o User Authorization - An authenticated individual has implicit | o User Authorization - An authenticated individual has implicit | |||
| authorization to perform commands on the device. Console access | authorization to perform commands on the device. Console access | |||
| is usually granted via at least two privilege levels: | is usually granted via at least two privilege levels: | |||
| authorization for performing a basic set of commands vs | authorization for performing a basic set of commands vs | |||
| authorization for performing all commands. | authorization for performing all commands. | |||
| o Data Origin Authentication - Not applicable | o Data Origin Authentication - Not applicable | |||
| o Access Control - Not applicable | o Access Control - Not applicable | |||
| o Data Integrity - Not applicable | o Data Integrity - Not applicable | |||
| o Data Confidentiality - Not applicable | o Data Confidentiality - Not applicable | |||
| o Auditing / Logging - All access to the physical locations of the | o Auditing / Logging - All access to the physical locations of the | |||
| infrastructure equipment is logged via electronic card-key | infrastructure equipment is logged via electronic card-key | |||
| systems. All console access is logged (refer to the OOB | systems. All console access is logged (refer to the OOB | |||
| management section for more details) | management section for more details) | |||
| o DoS Mitigation - Not applicable | o DoS Mitigation - Not applicable | |||
| 2.1.4 Additional Considerations | 2.1.4 Additional Considerations | |||
| Physical security is relevant to operational security practices as | Physical security is relevant to operational security practices as | |||
| described in this document mostly from a console access perspective. | described in this document mostly from a console access perspective. | |||
| Most ISPs provide console access via an OOB management infrastructure | Most ISPs provide console access via an OOB management infrastructure | |||
| which is discussed in the OOB management section of this document. | which is discussed in the OOB management section of this document. | |||
| The physical and logical authentication and logging systems should be | ||||
| run independently of each other and reside in different physical | ||||
| locations. | ||||
| Social engineering plays a big role in many physical access | ||||
| compromises. Most ISPs have set up training classes and awareness | ||||
| programs to educate company personnel to deny physical access to | ||||
| people who are not properly authenticated or authorized to have | ||||
| physical access to critical infrastructure devices. | ||||
| 2.2 Device In-Band Management | 2.2 Device In-Band Management | |||
| In-band management is generally considered to be device access where | In-band management is generally considered to be device access where | |||
| the control traffic takes the same data path as the data which | the control traffic takes the same data path as the data which | |||
| traverses the network. In many environments, device management for | traverses the network. In many environments, device management for | |||
| layer 2 and layer 3 infrastructure devices is deployed as part of an | layer 2 and layer 3 infrastructure devices is deployed as part of an | |||
| out-of-band management infrastructure although there are some | out-of-band management infrastructure although there are some | |||
| instances where it is deployed in-band as well. Presently, the | instances where it is deployed in-band as well. Presently, the | |||
| mechanisms used for in-band management are via virtual terminal | mechanisms used for in-band management are via virtual terminal | |||
| access (i.e. Telnet or SSH), SNMP, or HTTP. In all large ISP | access (i.e. Telnet or SSH), SNMP, or HTTP. In all large ISPs that | |||
| environments, HTTP management is never used and is explicitly | were interviewed, HTTP management is never used and is explicitly | |||
| disabled. Note that file transfer protocols (TFTP, FTP, SCP) will | disabled. Note that file transfer protocols (TFTP, FTP, SCP) will | |||
| be covered in the 'Software Upgrades and Configuration | be covered in the 'Software Upgrades and Configuration Integrity/ | |||
| Integrity/Validation' section. | Validation' section. | |||
| 2.2.1 Threats / Attacks | 2.2.1 Threats / Attacks | |||
| For in-band device management, passive attacks are possible if | For in-band device management, passive attacks are possible if | |||
| someone has the capability to intercept data between the management | someone has the capability to intercept data between the management | |||
| device and the managed device. The threat is possible if a single | device and the managed device. The threat is possible if a single | |||
| infrastructure device is somehow compromised and can act as a network | infrastructure device is somehow compromised and can act as a network | |||
| sniffer or if it is possible to insert a new device which acts as a | sniffer or if it is possible to insert a new device which acts as a | |||
| network sniffer. | network sniffer. | |||
| skipping to change at page 11, line 5 ¶ | skipping to change at page 12, line 22 ¶ | |||
| SSH is always used for virtual terminal access to provide for an | SSH is always used for virtual terminal access to provide for an | |||
| encrypted communication channel. There are exceptions due to | encrypted communication channel. There are exceptions due to | |||
| equipment limitations which are described in the additional | equipment limitations which are described in the additional | |||
| considerations section. | considerations section. | |||
| If SNMP is used for in-band management, it is for read queries only | If SNMP is used for in-band management, it is for read queries only | |||
| and restricted to specific hosts. The community strings are | and restricted to specific hosts. The community strings are | |||
| carefully chosen to be difficult to crack and there are procedures in | carefully chosen to be difficult to crack and there are procedures in | |||
| place to change these community strings between 30-90 days. If | place to change these community strings between 30-90 days. If | |||
| systems support two SNMP strings, a second new string is set and then | systems support two SNMP community strings, the old string is | |||
| migrate over from the 1st to the 2nd. Most large ISPs have multiple | replaced by first configuring a second newer community string and | |||
| SNMP systems accessing their routers so it takes more then one | then migrating over from the currently used string to the newer one. | |||
| maintenance period to get all the strings fixed in all the right | Most large ISPs have multiple SNMP systems accessing their routers so | |||
| systems. SNMP RW is not used and disabled by configuration. | it takes more then one maintenance period to get all the strings | |||
| fixed in all the right systems. SNMP RW is not used and disabled by | ||||
| configuration. | ||||
| Access control is strictly enforced for infrastructure devices by | Access control is strictly enforced for infrastructure devices by | |||
| using stringent filtering rules. A limited set of IP addresses are | using stringent filtering rules. A limited set of IP addresses are | |||
| allowed to initiate connections to the infrastructure devices and are | allowed to initiate connections to the infrastructure devices and are | |||
| specific to the services which they are to limited to (i.e. SSH and | specific to the services which they are to limited to (i.e. SSH and | |||
| SNMP). | SNMP). | |||
| All in-band device management access is audited. The AAA server | All in-band device management access is audited and any violations | |||
| keeps track of the authenticated entity as well as all the commands | trigger alarms which initiate automated email, pager and/or telephone | |||
| that were carried out on a specific device. Additionally, the device | notifications. AAA servers keeps track of the authenticated entity | |||
| itself logs any access control violations (i.e. if an SSH request | as well as all the commands that were carried out on a specific | |||
| comes in from an IP address which is not explicitly permitted, that | device. Additionally, the device itself logs any access control | |||
| event is logged so that the offending IP address can be tracked down | violations (i.e. if an SSH request comes in from an IP address which | |||
| and investigations made as to why it was trying to access a | is not explicitly permitted, that event is logged so that the | |||
| particular infrastructure device) | offending IP address can be tracked down and investigations made as | |||
| to why it was trying to access a particular infrastructure device) | ||||
| 2.2.3 Security Services | 2.2.3 Security Services | |||
| The following security services are offered through the use of the | The following security services are offered through the use of the | |||
| practices described in the previous section: | practices described in the previous section: | |||
| o User Authentication - All individuals are authenticated via AAA | o User Authentication - All individuals are authenticated via AAA | |||
| services. | services. | |||
| o User Authorization - All individuals are authorized via AAA | o User Authorization - All individuals are authorized via AAA | |||
| services to perform specific operations once successfully | services to perform specific operations once successfully | |||
| authenticated. | authenticated. | |||
| o Data Origin Authentication - Management traffic is strictly | o Data Origin Authentication - Management traffic is strictly | |||
| filtered to allow only specific IP addresses to have access to the | filtered to allow only specific IP addresses to have access to the | |||
| infrastructure devices. This does not alleviate risk from spoofed | infrastructure devices. This does not alleviate risk from spoofed | |||
| traffic. Using SSH for device access ensures that noone can spoof | traffic. Using SSH for device access ensures that noone can spoof | |||
| the traffic during the SSH session. | the traffic during the SSH session. | |||
| o Access Control - In-band management traffic is filtered to allow | o Access Control - In-band management traffic is filtered to allow | |||
| only specific IP addresses to have access to the infrastructure | only specific IP addresses to have access to the infrastructure | |||
| devices. | devices. | |||
| o Data Integrity - Using SSH provides data integrity and ensures | o Data Integrity - Using SSH provides data integrity and ensures | |||
| that noone has altered the management data in transit. | that noone has altered the management data in transit. | |||
| o Data Confidentiality - Using SSH provides data confidentiality. | o Data Confidentiality - Using SSH provides data confidentiality. | |||
| o Auditing / Logging - Using AAA provides an audit trail for who | o Auditing / Logging - Using AAA provides an audit trail for who | |||
| accessed which device and which operations were performed. | accessed which device and which operations were performed. | |||
| o DoS Mitigation - Filtering to allow only specific IP addresses to | ||||
| have access to the infrastructure devices. This does not defend | ||||
| against spoofed traffic which may be used to source a DoS attack. | ||||
| Often OOB management is used to lower that risk. | o DoS Mitigation - Using packet filters to allow only specific IP | |||
| addresses to have access to the infrastructure devices. This | ||||
| limits but does not prevent spoofed DoS attacks directed at an | ||||
| infrastructure device. Often OOB management is used to lower that | ||||
| risk. | ||||
| 2.2.4 Additional Considerations | 2.2.4 Additional Considerations | |||
| IPsec is considered too difficult to implement and the common | Password selection for any in-band device management protocol used is | |||
| protocol to provide for confidential in-band management access is | critical to ensure that the passwords are hard to guess or break | |||
| SSH. There are exceptions for using SSH due to equipment limitations | using a brute-force attack. | |||
| since SSH may not be supported on legacy equipment. Also, in the | ||||
| case where the SSH key is stored on a route processor card, a | IPsec is considered too difficult to deploy and the common protocol | |||
| re-keying of SSH would be required whenever the route processor card | to provide for confidential in-band management access is SSH. There | |||
| needs to be swapped. Some providers feel that this operational | are exceptions for using SSH due to equipment limitations since SSH | |||
| impact exceeds the security necessary and instead use Telnet from | may not be supported on legacy equipment. Also, in the case where | |||
| trusted inside hosts (called 'jumphosts') to manage those devices. | the SSH key is stored on a route processor card, a re-keying of SSH | |||
| An individual would first SSH to the jumphost and then Telnet from | would be required whenever the route processor card needs to be | |||
| the jumphost to the actual infrastructure device. All authentication | swapped. Some providers feel that this operational impact exceeds | |||
| and authorization is still carried out using AAA servers. In | the security necessary and instead use Telnet from trusted inside | |||
| instances where Telnet access is used, the logs on the AAA servers | hosts (called 'jumphosts') to manage those devices. An individual | |||
| would first SSH to the jumphost and then Telnet from the jumphost to | ||||
| the actual infrastructure device. All authentication and | ||||
| authorization is still carried out using AAA servers. | ||||
| In instances where Telnet access is used, the logs on the AAA servers | ||||
| are more verbose and more attention is paid to them to detect any | are more verbose and more attention is paid to them to detect any | |||
| abnormal behavior. Note that Telent is NEVER allowed to an | abnormal behavior. The jumphosts themselves are carefully controlled | |||
| infrastructure device except from specific jumphosts whose IP | machines and usually have limited access. Note that Telent is NEVER | |||
| addresses are filtered at the infrastructure device. | allowed to an infrastructure device except from specific jumphosts; | |||
| i.e. packet filters are used to ensure that Telnet is only allowed | ||||
| from specific IP addresses. | ||||
| With thousands of devices to manage, some ISPs have created automated | With thousands of devices to manage, some ISPs have created automated | |||
| mechanisms to authenticate to devices. Kerberos is used to automate | mechanisms to authenticate to devices. Kerberos is used to automate | |||
| the authentication process. An individual would first log in to a | the authentication process. An individual would first log in to a | |||
| Kerberized UNIX server using SSH and generate a Kerberos 'ticket'. | Kerberized UNIX server using SSH and generate a Kerberos 'ticket'. | |||
| This 'ticket' is generally set to have a lifespan of 10 hours and is | This 'ticket' is generally set to have a lifespan of 10 hours and is | |||
| used to automatically authenticate the individual to the | used to automatically authenticate the individual to the | |||
| infrastructure devices. | infrastructure devices. | |||
| In instances where SNMP is used, some legacy devices only support | In instances where SNMP is used, some legacy devices only support | |||
| skipping to change at page 15, line 24 ¶ | skipping to change at page 17, line 12 ¶ | |||
| Access control is strictly enforced for infrastructure devices by | Access control is strictly enforced for infrastructure devices by | |||
| using stringent filtering rules. A limited set of IP addresses are | using stringent filtering rules. A limited set of IP addresses are | |||
| allowed to initiate connections to the infrastructure devices and are | allowed to initiate connections to the infrastructure devices and are | |||
| specific to the services which they are to limited to (i.e. SSH and | specific to the services which they are to limited to (i.e. SSH and | |||
| SNMP). | SNMP). | |||
| All OOB device management access is audited. The AAA server keeps | All OOB device management access is audited. The AAA server keeps | |||
| track of the authenticated entity as well as all the commands that | track of the authenticated entity as well as all the commands that | |||
| were carried out on a specific device. Additionally, the device | were carried out on a specific device. Additionally, the device | |||
| itself logs any access control violations (i.e. if an SSH request | itself logs any access control violations (i.e. if an SSH request | |||
| comes in from an IP address which is not explicitly permitted, that | comes in from an IP address which is not explicitly permitted, that | |||
| event is logged so that the offending IP address can be tracked down | event is logged so that the offending IP address can be tracked down | |||
| and investigations made as to why it was trying to access a | and investigations made as to why it was trying to access a | |||
| particular infrastructure device) | particular infrastructure device) | |||
| 2.3.3 Security Services | 2.3.3 Security Services | |||
| The security services offered for device OOB management are nearly | ||||
| identical to those of device in-band management. Due to the critical | ||||
| nature of controlling and limiting device access, many ISPs feel that | ||||
| physically separating the management traffic from the normal customer | ||||
| data traffic will provide an added level of risk mitigation and limit | ||||
| the potential attack vectors. For OOB management, the security | ||||
| services offered through the use of the practices described in the | ||||
| previous section are: | ||||
| o User Authentication - All individuals are authenticated via AAA | o User Authentication - All individuals are authenticated via AAA | |||
| services. | services. | |||
| o User Authorization - All individuals are authorized via AAA | o User Authorization - All individuals are authorized via AAA | |||
| services to perform specific operations once successfully | services to perform specific operations once successfully | |||
| authenticated. | authenticated. | |||
| o Data Origin Authentication - Management traffic is strictly | o Data Origin Authentication - Management traffic is strictly | |||
| filtered to allow only specific IP addresses to have access to the | filtered to allow only specific IP addresses to have access to the | |||
| infrastructure devices. This does not alleviate risk from spoofed | infrastructure devices. This does not alleviate risk from spoofed | |||
| traffic. Using SSH for device access ensures that noone can spoof | traffic. Using SSH for device access ensures that noone can spoof | |||
| the traffic during the SSH session. | the traffic during the SSH session. | |||
| o Access Control - In-band management traffic is filtered to allow | o Access Control - In-band management traffic is filtered to allow | |||
| only specific IP addresses to have access to the infrastructure | only specific IP addresses to have access to the infrastructure | |||
| devices. | devices. | |||
| o Data Integrity - Using SSH provides data integrity and ensures | o Data Integrity - Using SSH provides data integrity and ensures | |||
| that noone has altered the management data in transit. | that noone has altered the management data in transit. | |||
| o Data Confidentiality - Using SSH provides data confidentiality. | o Data Confidentiality - Using SSH provides data confidentiality. | |||
| o Auditing / Logging - Using AAA provides an audit trail for who | o Auditing / Logging - Using AAA provides an audit trail for who | |||
| accessed which device and which operations were performed. | accessed which device and which operations were performed. | |||
| o DoS Mitigation - Filtering to allow only specific IP addresses to | ||||
| have access to the infrastructure devices. This does not defend | ||||
| against spoofed traffic which may be used to source a DoS attack. | ||||
| The risk is lowered by using a separate network for management | o DoS Mitigation - Using packet filters to allow only specific IP | |||
| purposes. | addresses to have access to the infrastructure devices. This | |||
| limits but does not prevent spoofed DoS attacks directed at an | ||||
| infrastructure device. However, the risk is lowered by using a | ||||
| separate physical network for management purposes. | ||||
| 2.3.4 Additional Considerations | 2.3.4 Additional Considerations | |||
| IPsec is considered too difficult to implement and the common | Password selection for any OOB device management protocol used is | |||
| protocol to provide for confidential OOB management access is SSH. | critical to ensure that the passwords are hard to guess or break | |||
| There are exceptions for using SSH due to equipment limitations | using a brute-force attack. | |||
| since SSH may not be supported on legacy equipment. Also, in the | ||||
| case where the SSH key is stored on a route processor card, a | IPsec is considered too difficult to deploy and the common protocol | |||
| re-keying of SSH would be required whenever the route processor card | to provide for confidential OOB management access is SSH. There are | |||
| needs to be swapped. Some providers feel that this operational | exceptions for using SSH due to equipment limitations since SSH may | |||
| impact exceeds the security necessary and instead use Telnet from | not be supported on legacy equipment. Also, in the case where the | |||
| trusted inside hosts (called 'jumphosts') to manage those device. An | SSH key is stored on a route processor card, a re-keying of SSH would | |||
| individual would first SSH to the jumphost and then Telnet from the | be required whenever the route processor card needs to be swapped. | |||
| jumphost to the terminal server before logging in to the device | Some providers feel that this operational impact exceeds the security | |||
| console. All authentication and authorization is still carried out | necessary and instead use Telnet from trusted inside hosts (called | |||
| using AAA servers. In instances where Telnet access is used, the | 'jumphosts') to manage those device. An individual would first SSH | |||
| logs on the AAA servers are more verbose and more attention is paid | to the jumphost and then Telnet from the jumphost to the terminal | |||
| to them to detect any abnormal behavior. Note that Telent is NEVER | server before logging in to the device console. All authentication | |||
| allowed to a console server or infrastructure device except from | and authorization is still carried out using AAA servers. | |||
| specific jumphosts whose IP addresses are filtered at the console | ||||
| server and/or infrastructure device. | In instances where Telnet access is used, the logs on the AAA servers | |||
| are more verbose and more attention is paid to them to detect any | ||||
| abnormal behavior. The jumphosts themselves are carefully controlled | ||||
| machines and usually have limited access. Note that Telent is NEVER | ||||
| allowed to an infrastructure device except from specific jumphosts; | ||||
| i.e. packet filters are used at the console server and/or | ||||
| infrastructure device to ensure that Telnet is only allowed from | ||||
| specific IP addresses. | ||||
| In instances where SNMP is used, some legacy devices only support | In instances where SNMP is used, some legacy devices only support | |||
| SNMPv1 which then requires the provider to mandate its use across all | SNMPv1 which then requires the provider to mandate its use across all | |||
| infrastructure devices for operational simplicity. SNMPv2 is | infrastructure devices for operational simplicity. SNMPv2 is | |||
| primarily deployed since it is easier to set up than v3. | primarily deployed since it is easier to set up than v3. | |||
| 2.4 Data Path | 2.4 Data Path | |||
| This section refers to how traffic is handled which traverses the | This section refers to how traffic is handled which traverses the | |||
| network infrastructure device. The primary goal of ISPs is to | network infrastructure device. The primary goal of ISPs is to | |||
| forward customer traffic. However, due to the large amount of attack | forward customer traffic. However, due to the large amount of | |||
| traffic that can cause DoS attacks and render the network | malicious traffic that can cause DoS attacks and render the network | |||
| unavailable, specific measures are sometimes deployed to ensure the | unavailable, specific measures are sometimes deployed to ensure the | |||
| availability to forward legitimate customer traffic. | availability to forward legitimate customer traffic. | |||
| 2.4.1 Threats / Attacks | 2.4.1 Threats / Attacks | |||
| Any data traffic can potentially be attack traffic and the challenge | Any data traffic can potentially be attack traffic and the challenge | |||
| is to detect and potentially stop forwarding any of the malicious | is to detect and potentially stop forwarding any of the malicious | |||
| traffic. | traffic. The deliberately sourced attack traffic can consist of | |||
| packets with spoofed source and/or destination addresses or any other | ||||
| malformed packet which mangle any portion of a header field to cause | ||||
| protocol-related security issues (such as resetting connections, | ||||
| causing unwelcome ICPM redirects, creating unwelcome IP options or | ||||
| packet fragmentations). | ||||
| 2.4.2 Security Practices | 2.4.2 Security Practices | |||
| Filtering and rate limiting are the primary mechanism to provide risk | Filtering and rate limiting are the primary mechanism to provide risk | |||
| mitigation of malicious traffic rendering the ISP services | mitigation of malicious traffic rendering the ISP services | |||
| unavailable. However, filtering and rate limiting of data path | unavailable. However, filtering and rate limiting of data path | |||
| traffic is deployed in a variety of ways depending on how automated | traffic is deployed in a variety of ways depending on how automated | |||
| the process is and the reliability of existing deployed hardware. | the process is and what the capabilities and performance limitations | |||
| of existing deployed hardware are. | ||||
| The ISPs which do not have performance issues with their equipment | The ISPs which do not have performance issues with their equipment | |||
| follow BCP38 guidelines. Null routes and black-hole filtering are | follow BCP38 [BCP38] guidelines. Null routes and black-hole | |||
| used to deter any detected malicious traffic streams. Most ISPs | filtering are used to deter any detected malicious traffic streams. | |||
| consider layer 4 filtering useful but it is only implemented if there | Most ISPs consider layer 4 filtering useful but it is only | |||
| is no performance limitations on the devices. Netflow is used for | implemented if there is no performance limitations on the devices. | |||
| tracking traffic flows but there is some concern whether sampling is | Netflow is used for tracking traffic flows but there is some concern | |||
| good enough to detect malicious behavior. | whether sampling is good enough to detect malicious behavior. | |||
| Unicast RPF is not consistently implemented. Some ISPs are in | Unicast RPF is not consistently implemented. Some ISPs are in | |||
| process of doing so while other ISPs think that the perceived benefit | process of doing so while other ISPs think that the perceived benefit | |||
| of knowing that spoofed traffic comes from legitimate addresses are | of knowing that spoofed traffic comes from legitimate addresses are | |||
| not worth the operational complexity. Some providers have a policy | not worth the operational complexity. Some providers have a policy | |||
| of implementing uRPF at link speeds of DS3 and below. | of implementing uRPF at link speeds of DS3 and below. | |||
| 2.4.3 Security Services | 2.4.3 Security Services | |||
| o User Authentication - Not applicable | o User Authentication - Not applicable | |||
| skipping to change at page 17, line 25 ¶ | skipping to change at page 19, line 45 ¶ | |||
| Unicast RPF is not consistently implemented. Some ISPs are in | Unicast RPF is not consistently implemented. Some ISPs are in | |||
| process of doing so while other ISPs think that the perceived benefit | process of doing so while other ISPs think that the perceived benefit | |||
| of knowing that spoofed traffic comes from legitimate addresses are | of knowing that spoofed traffic comes from legitimate addresses are | |||
| not worth the operational complexity. Some providers have a policy | not worth the operational complexity. Some providers have a policy | |||
| of implementing uRPF at link speeds of DS3 and below. | of implementing uRPF at link speeds of DS3 and below. | |||
| 2.4.3 Security Services | 2.4.3 Security Services | |||
| o User Authentication - Not applicable | o User Authentication - Not applicable | |||
| o User Authorization - Not applicable | o User Authorization - Not applicable | |||
| o Data Origin Authentication - When IP address filtering per BCP38 | o Data Origin Authentication - When IP address filtering per BCP38 | |||
| and uRPF are deployed at network edges it can ensure that any | and uRPF are deployed at network edges it can ensure that any | |||
| spoofed traffic comes from at least a legitimate IP address and | spoofed traffic comes from at least a legitimate IP address and | |||
| can be tracked. | can be tracked. | |||
| o Access Control - IP address filtering and layer 4 filtering is | o Access Control - IP address filtering and layer 4 filtering is | |||
| used to deny forbidden protocols and limit traffic destined for | used to deny forbidden protocols and limit traffic destined for | |||
| infrastructure device itself. | infrastructure device itself. | |||
| o Data Integrity - Not applicable | o Data Integrity - Not applicable | |||
| o Data Confidentiality - Not applicable | o Data Confidentiality - Not applicable | |||
| o Auditing / Logging - Filtering exceptions are logged for potential | o Auditing / Logging - Filtering exceptions are logged for potential | |||
| attack traffic. | attack traffic. | |||
| o DoS Mitigation - Black-hole triggered filtering and rate-limiting | o DoS Mitigation - Black-hole triggered filtering and rate-limiting | |||
| are used to limit the risk of DoS attacks. | are used to limit the risk of DoS attacks. | |||
| 2.4.4 Additional Considerations | 2.4.4 Additional Considerations | |||
| For layer 2 devices, MAC address filtering and authentication is not | For layer 2 devices, MAC address filtering and authentication is not | |||
| used. This is due to the problems it can cause when troubleshooting | used. This is due to the problems it can cause when troubleshooting | |||
| networking issues. Port security becomes unmanageable at a large | networking issues. Port security becomes unmanageable at a large | |||
| scale where 1000s of switches are deployed. | scale where 1000s of switches are deployed. | |||
| Rate limiting is used by some ISPs although other ISPs believe it is | Rate limiting is used by some ISPs although other ISPs believe it is | |||
| not really useful since attackers are not well behaved and it doesn't | not really useful since attackers are not well behaved and it doesn't | |||
| provide any operational benefit over the complexity. Rate limiting | provide any operational benefit over the complexity. Rate limiting | |||
| can be improved by (need info) | may be improved by developing flow-based rate-limiting capabilities | |||
| Performance issues cause some ISPs to not implement BCP38 guidelines | with filtering hooks. This would improve the performance as well as | |||
| for ingress filtering. One such example is at edge boxes where you | the granularity over current capabilities. | |||
| have up to 1000 T1's connecting into a router with an OC-12 uplink. | ||||
| Some ISP's experience a large performance impact with filtering which | Lack of consistency regarding the ability to filter, especially with | |||
| is unacceptable for passing customer traffic through. Where | respect to performance issues cause some ISPs to not implement BCP38 | |||
| performance is not an issue, the ISPs make a tradeoff between | guidelines for ingress filtering. One such example is at edge boxes | |||
| management versus risk. | where you have up to 1000 T1's connecting into a router with an OC-12 | |||
| uplink. Some deployed devices experience a large performance impact | ||||
| with filtering which is unacceptable for passing customer traffic | ||||
| through. Where performance is not an issue, the ISPs make a tradeoff | ||||
| between management versus risk. | ||||
| 2.5 Routing Control Plane | 2.5 Routing Control Plane | |||
| The routing control plane deals with all the traffic which is part of | The routing control plane deals with all the traffic which is part of | |||
| establishing and maintaining routing protocol information. | establishing and maintaining routing protocol information. | |||
| 2.5.1 Threats / Attacks | 2.5.1 Threats / Attacks | |||
| Attacks on the routing control plane can be both from passive or | Attacks on the routing control plane can be both from passive or | |||
| active sources. Passive attacks are possible if someone has the | active sources. Passive attacks are possible if someone has the | |||
| capability to intercept data between the communicating routing peers. | capability to intercept data between the communicating routing peers. | |||
| This can be accomplished if a single routing peer is somehow | This can be accomplished if a single routing peer is somehow | |||
| compromised and can act as a network sniffer or if it is possible to | compromised and can act as a network sniffer or if it is possible to | |||
| insert a new device which acts as a network sniffer. | insert a new device which acts as a network sniffer. | |||
| Active attacks are possible for both on-path and off-path scenarios. | Active attacks are possible for both on-path and off-path scenarios. | |||
| For on-path active attacks, the situation is the same as for a | For on-path active attacks, the situation is the same as for a | |||
| passive attack, where either a device has to already be compromised | passive attack, where either a device has to already be compromised | |||
| or a device can be inserted into the path. For off-path active | or a device can be inserted into the path. This may lead to an | |||
| attacks, the attacks are generally limited to message insertion or | attacker impersonating a legitimate routing peer and exchanging | |||
| modification which can divert traffic to illegitimate destinations | routing information. Unintentional active attacks are more common | |||
| and cause traffic to never reach its intended destination. | due to configuration errors, which cause legitimate routing peers to | |||
| feed invalid routing information to other neighboring peers. | ||||
| For off-path active attacks, the attacks are generally limited to | ||||
| message insertion or modification which can divert traffic to | ||||
| illegitimate destinations and cause traffic to never reach its | ||||
| intended destination. | ||||
| 2.5.2 Confidentiality Violations | 2.5.2 Confidentiality Violations | |||
| Confidentiality violations can occur when a miscreant intercepts any | Confidentiality violations can occur when a miscreant intercepts any | |||
| of the routing update traffic. [is this an issue?] | of the routing update traffic. This is becoming more of a concern | |||
| because many ISPs are classifying addressing schemes and network | ||||
| topologies as private and proprietary information. It is also a | ||||
| concern because the routing protocol packets contain information that | ||||
| may show ways in which routing sessions could be spoofed or hijacked. | ||||
| This in turn could lead into a man-in-the-middle attack where the | ||||
| miscreants can insert themselves into the traffic path or divert the | ||||
| traffic path and violate the confidentiality of user data. | ||||
| 2.5.3 Offline Cryptographic Attacks | 2.5.3 Offline Cryptographic Attacks | |||
| If any cryptographic mechanism was used to provide for data integrity | If any cryptographic mechanism was used to provide for data integrity | |||
| and confidentiality, an offline cryptographic attack could | and confidentiality, an offline cryptographic attack could | |||
| potentially compromise the data. The traffic would need to be | potentially compromise the data. The traffic would need to be | |||
| captured either by eavesdropping on the network or by being able to | captured either by eavesdropping on the network or by being able to | |||
| divert traffic to a malicious user. Note that by using | divert traffic to a malicious user. Note that by using | |||
| cryptographically protected routing information, the latter would | cryptographically protected routing information, the latter would | |||
| require the cryptographic key to already be compromised anyway so | require the cryptographic key to already be compromised anyway so | |||
| skipping to change at page 19, line 25 ¶ | skipping to change at page 22, line 20 ¶ | |||
| by forging IP addresses, where a remote router sends out packets | by forging IP addresses, where a remote router sends out packets | |||
| which appear to come from another, trusted router. If enough traffic | which appear to come from another, trusted router. If enough traffic | |||
| is injected to be processed by limited memory routers it can cause a | is injected to be processed by limited memory routers it can cause a | |||
| DoS attack. | DoS attack. | |||
| 2.5.6 Man-In-The-Middle | 2.5.6 Man-In-The-Middle | |||
| A man-in-the-middle attack attacks the identity of a communicating | A man-in-the-middle attack attacks the identity of a communicating | |||
| peer rather than the data stream itself. The attacker intercepts | peer rather than the data stream itself. The attacker intercepts | |||
| traffic that is sent from one routing peer to the other and | traffic that is sent from one routing peer to the other and | |||
| communicates on behalf of one of the peers. | communicates on behalf of one of the peers. This can lead to | |||
| diversion of the user traffic to either an unauthorized receiving | ||||
| party or cause legitimate traffic to never reach its intended | ||||
| destination. | ||||
| 2.5.7 Security Practices | 2.5.7 Security Practices | |||
| Securing the routing control plane takes many features which are | Securing the routing control plane takes many features which are | |||
| generally deployed as a system. MD5 authentication is used by some | generally deployed as a system. MD5 authentication is used by some | |||
| ISPs to validate the sending peer and to ensure that the data in | ISPs to validate the sending peer and to ensure that the data in | |||
| transit has not been altered. Some ISPs only do MD-5 authentication | transit has not been altered. Some ISPs only deploy MD-5 | |||
| at customer's request. Many ISPs also deploy sanity checks to ensure | authentication at customer's request. Additional sanity checks to | |||
| with some certainty that the received routing update has been | ensure with reasonable certainty that the received routing update was | |||
| authorized to be sent by the sending party. In the case of BGP | originated by a valid routing peer include route filters and the BTSH | |||
| routing, this is accomplished through the use of routing registries | feature [BTSH]. Note that validating whether a legitimate peer has | |||
| and prefix limits. Additionally, route filters and the ttl-hack | the authority to send the contents of the routing update is a | |||
| (politically correct name? BTSH?) ensure with reasonable probability | difficult problem that needs yet to be resolved. | |||
| that the routing update came from a valid peer. | ||||
| [editor's note: should more info be included on secure BGP policy? | In the case of BGP routing, a variety of policies are deployed to | |||
| Rejecting advertisements for your own backbone, advertisements to | limit the propagation of invalid routing information. These include: | |||
| bogons, route damping, rejecting selected attributes and communities, | incoming and outgoing prefix filters for BGP customers, incoming and | |||
| etc. (Will need more specific input from provider deployment)] | outgoing prefix filters for peers and upstream neighbors, incoming | |||
| AS-PATH filter for BGP customers, outgoing AS-PATH filter towards | ||||
| peers and upstream neighbors, route dampening and rejecting selected | ||||
| attributes and communities. Consistency between these policies | ||||
| varies greatly although there is a trend to start depending on AS- | ||||
| PATH filters because they are much more manageable than the large | ||||
| numbers of prefix filters that would need to be maintained. Many | ||||
| ISPs also do not propagate interface IP addresses to further reduce | ||||
| attack vectors on routers and connected customers. | ||||
| 2.5.8 Security Services | 2.5.8 Security Services | |||
| o User Authentication - Not applicable | o User Authentication - Not applicable | |||
| o User Authorization - Not applicable | o User Authorization - Not applicable | |||
| o Data Origin Authentication - By using MD5 authentication and/or | o Data Origin Authentication - By using MD5 authentication and/or | |||
| the TTL-hack a routing peer can be reasonably certain that traffic | the TTL-hack a routing peer can be reasonably certain that traffic | |||
| originated from a valid peer. | originated from a valid peer. | |||
| o Access Control - Route filtering and prefix limits are used to | o Access Control - Route filters, AS-PATH filters and prefix limits | |||
| control access to specific parts of the network. | are used to control access to specific parts of the network. | |||
| o Data Integrity - By using MD5 authentication a peer can be | o Data Integrity - By using MD5 authentication a peer can be | |||
| reasonably certain that the data has not been modified in transit | reasonably certain that the data has not been modified in transit | |||
| but there is no mechanism to prove the validity of the routing | but there is no mechanism to prove the validity of the routing | |||
| information itself. | information itself. | |||
| o Data Confidentiality - Not implemented | o Data Confidentiality - Not implemented | |||
| o Auditing / Logging - TBD | o Auditing / Logging - TBD | |||
| o DoS Mitigation - Many DoS attacks are mitigated using a | o DoS Mitigation - Many DoS attacks are mitigated using a | |||
| combination of techniques including: MD5 authentication, the | combination of techniques including: MD5 authentication, the BTSH | |||
| ttl-hack, filtering advertisements to bogons and filtering | feature, filtering routing advertisements to bogons and filtering | |||
| advertisements to one's own network. | routing advertisements to one's own network. | |||
| 2.5.9 Additional Considerations | 2.5.9 Additional Considerations | |||
| So far the primary concern to secure the routing control plane has | So far the primary concern to secure the routing control plane has | |||
| been to validate the sending peer and to ensure that the data in | been to validate the sending peer and to ensure that the data in | |||
| transit has not been altered. Although MD-5 routing protocol | transit has not been altered. Although MD-5 routing protocol | |||
| extensions have been implemented which can provide both services, | extensions have been implemented which can provide both services, | |||
| they are not consistently deployed amongst ISPs. Two major | they are not consistently deployed amongst ISPs. Two major | |||
| deployment concerns have been implementation issues where both | deployment concerns have been implementation issues where both | |||
| software bugs and the lack of graceful re-keying options have caused | software bugs and the lack of graceful re-keying options have caused | |||
| significant network down times. Also, some ISPs express concern that | significant network down times. Also, some ISPs express concern that | |||
| deploying MD5 authentication will itself be a worse DoS attack victim | deploying MD5 authentication will itself be a worse DoS attack victim | |||
| and prefer to use a combination of other risk mitigation mechanisms | and prefer to use a combination of other risk mitigation mechanisms | |||
| (ttl-hack and route filters). | such as BTSH and route filters. | |||
| Route filters are used to limit what routes are believed from a valid | ||||
| peer. Packet filters are used to limit which systems can appear as a | ||||
| valid peer. Due to the operational constraints of maintaining large | ||||
| prefix filter lists, many ISPs are starting to depend on BGP AS-PATh | ||||
| filters to/from their peers and upstream neighbors. | ||||
| IPsec is not deployed since the operational management aspects of | IPsec is not deployed since the operational management aspects of | |||
| ensuring interoperability and reliable configurations is too complex | ensuring interoperability and reliable configurations is too complex | |||
| and time consuming to be operationally viable. There is also limited | and time consuming to be operationally viable. There is also limited | |||
| concern to the confidentiality of the routing information. The | concern to the confidentiality of the routing information. The | |||
| integrity and validity of the updates are of much greater concern. | integrity and validity of the updates are of much greater concern. | |||
| There is concern for manual or automated actions which introduce new | There is concern for manual or automated actions which introduce new | |||
| routes and can affect the entire routing domain. | routes and can affect the entire routing domain. | |||
| skipping to change at page 22, line 13 ¶ | skipping to change at page 25, line 34 ¶ | |||
| added command is to allow a miscreant access to that device by | added command is to allow a miscreant access to that device by | |||
| entering a filter allowing a specific host access and configuring a | entering a filter allowing a specific host access and configuring a | |||
| local username/password database entry for authentication to that | local username/password database entry for authentication to that | |||
| device. | device. | |||
| 2.6.6 Man-In-The-Middle | 2.6.6 Man-In-The-Middle | |||
| A man-in-the-middle attack attacks the identity of a communicating | A man-in-the-middle attack attacks the identity of a communicating | |||
| peer rather than the data stream itself. The attacker intercepts | peer rather than the data stream itself. The attacker intercepts | |||
| traffic that is sent between the infrastructure device and the host | traffic that is sent between the infrastructure device and the host | |||
| used to upload/download the system image or configuration file and | used to upload/download the system image or configuration file. He/ | |||
| acts on behalf of one or both of these systems. | she can then act on behalf of one or both of these systems. | |||
| If an attacker obtained a copy of the software image being deployed, | ||||
| he could potentially exploit a known vulnerability and gain access to | ||||
| the system. From a captured configuration file, he could obtain | ||||
| confidential network topology information or even more damaging | ||||
| information if any of the passwords in the configuration file were | ||||
| not encrypted. | ||||
| 2.6.7 Security Practices | 2.6.7 Security Practices | |||
| Images and configurations are stored on specific hosts which have | Images and configurations are stored on specific hosts which have | |||
| limited access. All access and activity relating to these hosts are | limited access. All access and activity relating to these hosts are | |||
| authenticated and logged via AAA services. When uploaded/downloading | authenticated and logged via AAA services. When uploaded/downloading | |||
| any system software or configuration files, either TFTP, FTP or SCP | any system software or configuration files, either TFTP, FTP or SCP | |||
| can be used. Where possible, SCP is used to secure the data transfer | can be used. Where possible, SCP is used to secure the data transfer | |||
| and FTP is generally never used. All TFTP and SCP access is | and FTP is generally never used. All TFTP and SCP access is | |||
| username/password authenticated and in most environments scripts are | username/password authenticated and in most environments scripts are | |||
| skipping to change at page 22, line 45 ¶ | skipping to change at page 26, line 25 ¶ | |||
| The software images perform CRC-checks but many ISPs expressed | The software images perform CRC-checks but many ISPs expressed | |||
| interest in having software image integrity validation based on the | interest in having software image integrity validation based on the | |||
| MD5 algorithm for enhanced security. The system binaries use the MD5 | MD5 algorithm for enhanced security. The system binaries use the MD5 | |||
| algorithm to validate integrity. | algorithm to validate integrity. | |||
| In all configuration files, the passwords are stored in an obfuscated | In all configuration files, the passwords are stored in an obfuscated | |||
| format. This includes passwords for user authentication, MD5 shared | format. This includes passwords for user authentication, MD5 shared | |||
| secrets, AAA server shared secrets, NTP shared secrets, etc. For | secrets, AAA server shared secrets, NTP shared secrets, etc. For | |||
| older software which may not support this functionality, | older software which may not support this functionality, | |||
| configuration files are stored with passwords in readable format. | configuration files are stored with passwords in readable format. [is | |||
| [is this true? are configuration files then protected? if passwords | this true? are configuration files then protected? if passwords in | |||
| in readable format, is the thought that an OOB management network | readable format, is the thought that an OOB management network with | |||
| with SCP will be enough protection? ] | SCP will be enough protection? ] | |||
| Automated security validation is performed on infrastructure devices | Automated security validation is performed on infrastructure devices | |||
| using nmap and nessus to ensure valid configuration against many of | using nmap and nessus to ensure valid configuration against many of | |||
| the well-known attacks. | the well-known attacks. | |||
| 2.6.8 Security Services | 2.6.8 Security Services | |||
| o User Authentication - All users are authenticated before being | o User Authentication - All users are authenticated before being | |||
| able to download/upload any system images or configuration files. | able to download/upload any system images or configuration files. | |||
| o User Authorization - All authenticated users are granted specific | o User Authorization - All authenticated users are granted specific | |||
| privileges to download or upload system images and/or | privileges to download or upload system images and/or | |||
| configuration files. | configuration files. | |||
| o Data Origin Authentication - TBD | o Data Origin Authentication - TBD | |||
| o Access Control - Filters are used to limit access to | ||||
| uploading/downloading configuration files and system images to | o Access Control - Filters are used to limit access to uploading/ | |||
| specific IP addresses and protocols. | downloading configuration files and system images to specific IP | |||
| addresses and protocols. | ||||
| o Data Integrity - All systems use either a CRC-check or MD5 | o Data Integrity - All systems use either a CRC-check or MD5 | |||
| authentication to ensure data integrity. | authentication to ensure data integrity. | |||
| o Data Confidentiality - If the SCP protocol is used then there is | o Data Confidentiality - If the SCP protocol is used then there is | |||
| confidentiality of the downloaded/uploaded configuration files and | confidentiality of the downloaded/uploaded configuration files and | |||
| system images. | system images. | |||
| o Auditing / Logging - All access and activity relating to | o Auditing / Logging - All access and activity relating to | |||
| downloading/uploading system images and configuration files are | downloading/uploading system images and configuration files are | |||
| logged via AAA services and filter exception rules. | logged via AAA services and filter exception rules. | |||
| o DoS Mitigation - TBD | o DoS Mitigation - TBD | |||
| 2.6.9 Additional Considerations | 2.6.9 Additional Considerations | |||
| Where the MD5 algorithm is not used to perform data integrity | Where the MD5 algorithm is not used to perform data integrity | |||
| checking, ISPs have expressed an interest in having this | checking of software images and configuration files, ISPs have | |||
| functionality. IPsec is considered too cumbersome and operationally | expressed an interest in having this functionality. IPsec is | |||
| difficult to use for data integrity and confidentiality. | considered too cumbersome and operationally difficult to use for data | |||
| integrity and confidentiality. | ||||
| 2.7 Logging Considerations | 2.7 Logging Considerations | |||
| Although logging is part of all the previous sections, it is | Although logging is part of all the previous sections, it is | |||
| important enough to be covered as a separate item. The main issues | important enough to be covered as a separate item. The main issues | |||
| revolve around what gets logged, how long are logs kept and what | revolve around what gets logged, how long are logs kept and what | |||
| mechanisms are used to secure the logged information while it is in | mechanisms are used to secure the logged information while it is in | |||
| transit and while it is stored. | transit and while it is stored. | |||
| 2.7.1 Threats / Attacks | 2.7.1 Threats / Attacks | |||
| skipping to change at page 24, line 34 ¶ | skipping to change at page 28, line 25 ¶ | |||
| If any cryptographic mechanism was used to provide for data integrity | If any cryptographic mechanism was used to provide for data integrity | |||
| and confidentiality, an offline cryptographic attack could | and confidentiality, an offline cryptographic attack could | |||
| potentially compromise the data. The traffic would need to be | potentially compromise the data. The traffic would need to be | |||
| captured either by eavesdropping on the network or by being able to | captured either by eavesdropping on the network or by being able to | |||
| divert traffic to a malicious user. | divert traffic to a malicious user. | |||
| 2.7.1.3 Replay Attacks | 2.7.1.3 Replay Attacks | |||
| For a replay attack to be successful, the logging data would need to | For a replay attack to be successful, the logging data would need to | |||
| first be captured either on-path or diverted to an attacker and later | first be captured either on-path or diverted to an attacker and later | |||
| replayed to the recipient. [is reply handled by syslog protocol?] | replayed to the recipient. [is reply handled by syslog protocol?] | |||
| 2.7.1.4 Message Insertion/Deletion/Modification | 2.7.1.4 Message Insertion/Deletion/Modification | |||
| Logging data could be injected, deleted or modified by someone in | Logging data could be injected, deleted or modified by someone in | |||
| control of intermediate hosts. Logging data can also be injected by | control of intermediate hosts. Logging data can also be injected by | |||
| forging packets from either legitimate or illegitimate IP addresses. | forging packets from either legitimate or illegitimate IP addresses. | |||
| 2.7.1.5 Man-In-The-Middle | 2.7.1.5 Man-In-The-Middle | |||
| A man-in-the-middle attack attacks the identity of a communicating | A man-in-the-middle attack attacks the identity of a communicating | |||
| peer rather than the data stream itself. The attacker intercepts | peer rather than the data stream itself. The attacker intercepts | |||
| traffic that is sent between the infrastructure device and the | traffic that is sent between the infrastructure device and the | |||
| logging server or traffic sent between the logging server and the | logging server or traffic sent between the logging server and the | |||
| database which is used to archive the logged data. | database which is used to archive the logged data. Any unauthorized | |||
| access to logging information could lead to knowledge of private and | ||||
| proprietary network topology information which could be used to | ||||
| compromise portions of the network. An additional concern is having | ||||
| access to logging information which could be deleted or modified so | ||||
| as to cover any traces of a security breach. | ||||
| 2.7.2 Security Practices | 2.7.2 Security Practices | |||
| Logging is mostly performed on an exception auditing basis when it | Logging is mostly performed on an exception auditing basis when it | |||
| comes to filtering (i.e. traffic which is NOT allowed is logged). | comes to filtering (i.e. traffic which is NOT allowed is logged). | |||
| Typically the data logged will contain the source and destination IP | Typically the data logged will contain the source and destination IP | |||
| addresses and layer 4 port numbers as well as a timestamp. The | addresses and layer 4 port numbers as well as a timestamp. The | |||
| syslog protocol is used to transfer the logged data between the | syslog protocol is used to transfer the logged data between the | |||
| infrastructure device to the syslog server. Many ISPs use the OOB | infrastructure device to the syslog server. Many ISPs use the OOB | |||
| management network to transfer syslog data since there is virtually | management network to transfer syslog data since there is virtually | |||
| no security performed between the syslog server and the device. All | no security performed between the syslog server and the device. All | |||
| ISPs have multiple syslog servers - some ISPs choose to use separate | ISPs have multiple syslog servers - some ISPs choose to use separate | |||
| syslog servers for varying infrastructure devices (i.e. one syslog | syslog servers for varying infrastructure devices (i.e. one syslog | |||
| server for backbone routers, one syslog server for customer edge | server for backbone routers, one syslog server for customer edge | |||
| routers, etc.) | routers, etc.) | |||
| The timestamp is derived from NTP which is generally configured as a | The timestamp is derived from NTP which is generally configured as a | |||
| flat hierarchy at stratum1 and stratum2 to have less configuration | flat hierarchy at stratum1 and stratum2 to have less configuration | |||
| and less maintenance. Each router is configured with one stratum1 | and less maintenance. Each router is configured with one stratum1 | |||
| peer both locally and remotely. | peer both locally and remotely. | |||
| In addition to logging filtering exceptions, the following is | In addition to logging filtering exceptions, the following is | |||
| typically logged: Routing protocol state changes, all device access | typically logged: Routing protocol state changes, all device access | |||
| skipping to change at page 25, line 44 ¶ | skipping to change at page 29, line 40 ¶ | |||
| The logs from the various syslog server devices are generally | The logs from the various syslog server devices are generally | |||
| transferred into databases at a set interval which can be anywhere | transferred into databases at a set interval which can be anywhere | |||
| from every 10 minutes to every hour. One ISP uses Rsync to push the | from every 10 minutes to every hour. One ISP uses Rsync to push the | |||
| data into a database and then the information is sorted manually by | data into a database and then the information is sorted manually by | |||
| someone SSH'ing to that database. | someone SSH'ing to that database. | |||
| 2.7.3 Security Services | 2.7.3 Security Services | |||
| o User Authentication - Not applicable | o User Authentication - Not applicable | |||
| o User Authorization - Not applicable | o User Authorization - Not applicable | |||
| o Data Origin Authentication - TBD | ||||
| o Data Origin Authentication - Not implemented | ||||
| o Access Control - Filtering on logging host and server IP address | o Access Control - Filtering on logging host and server IP address | |||
| to ensure that syslog information only goes to specific syslog | to ensure that syslog information only goes to specific syslog | |||
| hosts. | hosts. | |||
| o Data Integrity - Not implemented | o Data Integrity - Not implemented | |||
| o Data Confidentiality - Not implemented | o Data Confidentiality - Not implemented | |||
| o Auditing / Logging - TBD | o Auditing / Logging - TBD | |||
| o DoS Mitigation - TBD | o DoS Mitigation - TBD | |||
| 2.7.4 Additional Considerations | 2.7.4 Additional Considerations | |||
| There is no security with syslog and ISPs are fully cognizant of | There is no security with syslog and ISPs are fully cognizant of | |||
| this. IPsec is considered too operationally expensive and cumbersome | this. IPsec is considered too operationally expensive and cumbersome | |||
| to deploy. Syslog-ng and stunnel are being looked at for providing | to deploy. Syslog-ng and stunnel are being looked at for providing | |||
| better authenticated and integrity protected solutions. | better authenticated and integrity protected solutions. Mechanisms | |||
| to prevent unauthorized personnel from tampering with logs is | ||||
| constrained to auditing who has access to the logging servers and | ||||
| files. | ||||
| ISPs expressed requirements for more than just UDP syslog. They | ISPs expressed requirements for more than just UDP syslog. They | |||
| would also like more granular and flexible facilities and priorities, | would also like more granular and flexible facilities and priorities, | |||
| i.e. specific logs to specific servers. | i.e. specific logs to specific servers. | |||
| 2.8 Filtering Considerations | ||||
| [Editor note: Already covered but could be a sum up. This section to | ||||
| be added if enough proponents for it ] | ||||
| 2.8.1 Threats / Attacks | ||||
| To be added. | ||||
| 2.8.2 Security Mechanisms | ||||
| To be added. | ||||
| 2.8.3 Security Services | ||||
| To be added. | ||||
| o TBD | ||||
| o TBD | ||||
| 2.8.4 Additional Considerations | ||||
| TBD. | 2.8 Denial of Service Tracking / Tracing | |||
| 2.9 Denial of Service Tracking / Tracing | Denial of Service attacks are an ever increasing problem and require | |||
| vast amounts of resources to combat effectively. Some large ISPs do | ||||
| not concern themselves with attack streams that are less than 1G in | ||||
| bandwidth - this is on the larger pipes where 1G is essentially less | ||||
| than 5% of offered load. This is largely due to the large amounts of | ||||
| DDoS traffic which continually requires investigation and mitigation. | ||||
| At last count the number of hosts making up large distributed DoS | ||||
| BOTnets exceeded 1 million hosts. | ||||
| [special section for describing security techniques to avoid well | New techniques are continually evolving to automate the process of | |||
| known attacks? Includes sink hole routing, black-hole filtering, | detecting DoS sources and mitigating any adverse effects as quickly | |||
| uRPF, rate limiting] | as possible. At this time, ISPs are using a variety of mitigation | |||
| techniques including: sink hole routing, black-hole triggered | ||||
| routing, uRPF and rate limiting. Each of these techniques will be | ||||
| detailed below. | ||||
| 2.9.1 Threats / Attacks | 2.8.1 Sink Hole Routing | |||
| To be added. | To be added. | |||
| 2.9.2 Security Mechanisms | 2.8.2 Black-Hole Triggered Routing | |||
| To be added. | To be added. | |||
| 2.9.3 Security Services | 2.8.3 Unicast Reverse Path Forwarding | |||
| To be added. | Unicast Reverse Path Forwarding (uRPF) is a mechanism for validating | |||
| whether an incoming packet has a legitimate source address or not. | ||||
| It has two modes: strict mode and loose mode. In strict mode, uRPF | ||||
| checks whether the incoming packet has a source address that matches | ||||
| a prefix in the routing table, and whether the interface expects to | ||||
| receive a packet with this source address prefix. If the incoming | ||||
| packet fails the unicast RPF check, the packet is not accepted on the | ||||
| incoming interface. Loose mode uRPF is not as specific and the | ||||
| incoming packet is accepted if there is any route in the routing | ||||
| table for the source address. | ||||
| o TBD | uRPF is not used on interfaces that are likely to have routing | |||
| o TBD | asymmetry, meaning multiple routes to the source of a packet. | |||
| Usually for ISPs, uRPF is placed at the customer edge of a network. | ||||
| 2.9.4 Additional Considerations | 2.8.4 Rate Limiting | |||
| TBD | Details of rate limiting | |||
| 3. Security Considerations | 3. Security Considerations | |||
| This entire document deals with current security practices in large | This entire document deals with current security practices in large | |||
| ISP environments. As a synopsis, a table is shown below which | ISP environments. As a synopsis, a table is shown below which | |||
| summarizes the operational functions which are to be protected and | summarizes the operational functions which are to be protected and | |||
| the security services which currently deployed security practices | the security services which currently deployed security practices | |||
| offer: [ Table to be added ] | offer: [ Table to be added ] | |||
| 4. Normative References | 4. Normative References | |||
| [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate | [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate | |||
| Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. | Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. | |||
| [RFC2828] Shirey, R., "Internet Security Glossary", RFC 2828, May | [RFC2828] Shirey, R., "Internet Security Glossary", RFC 2828, | |||
| 2000. | May 2000. | |||
| [RFC3552] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC | [RFC3552] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC | |||
| Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552, July | Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552, | |||
| 2003. | July 2003. | |||
| Author's Address | Author's Address | |||
| Merike Kaeo | Merike Kaeo | |||
| Double Shot Security, Inc. | Double Shot Security, Inc. | |||
| 520 Washington Blvd. #363 | 520 Washington Blvd. #363 | |||
| Marina Del Rey, CA 90292 | Marina Del Rey, CA 90292 | |||
| U.S.A. | U.S.A. | |||
| Phone: +1 310 866 0165 | Phone: +1 310 866 0165 | |||
| Email: merike@doubleshotsecurity.com | Email: merike@doubleshotsecurity.com | |||
| Appendix A. Acknowledgments | Appendix A. Acknowledgments | |||
| The editor gratefully acknowledges the contributions of: | The editor gratefully acknowledges the contributions of: George | |||
| Jones, who has been instrumental in providing guidance and direction | ||||
| for this document and the insighful comments from Ross Callon and the | ||||
| numerous ISP operators who supplied the information which is depicted | ||||
| in this document. | ||||
| o George Jones, who has been instrumental in providing guidance and | Appendix B. Protocol Specific Attacks | |||
| direction for this document. | ||||
| o To be named | ||||
| o To be named | ||||
| This listing is intended to acknowledge contributions, not to imply | This section will enumerate many of the traditional protocol based | |||
| that the individual or organizations approve the content of this | attacks which have been observed over the years to cause malformed | |||
| document. | packets and/or exploit protocol deficiencies. | |||
| o ARP Flooding | ||||
| o IP Stream Option | ||||
| o IP Address Spoofing | ||||
| o IP Source Route Option | ||||
| o IP Short header | ||||
| o IP Malformed Packet | ||||
| o Ip Bad Option | ||||
| o Ip Address Session Limit | ||||
| o Fragmenmts - too many | ||||
| o Fragments - large offset | ||||
| o Fragments - same offset | ||||
| o Fragments - reassembly with different offsets (TearDrop Attac) | ||||
| o Fragments - reassembly off by one IP header (Nestea Attack) | ||||
| o Fragment - flooding only initial fragment (Rose Attack) | ||||
| o IGMP oversized packet | ||||
| o ICMP Source Quench | ||||
| o ICMP Mask Request | ||||
| o ICMP Large Packet (> 1472) | ||||
| o ICMP Oversized packet (>65536) | ||||
| o ICMP Flood | ||||
| o ICMP Broadcast w/ Spoofed Source (Smurf Attack) | ||||
| o ICMP Error Packet Flood | ||||
| o ICMP Spoofed Unreachable | ||||
| o TCP Packet without Flag | ||||
| o TCP Oversized Packet | ||||
| o TCP FIN bit with no ACK bit | ||||
| o TCP Packet with URG/OOB flag (Nuke Attack) | ||||
| o SYN Fragments | ||||
| o SYN Flood | ||||
| o SYN with IP Spoofing (Land Attack) | ||||
| o SYN and FIN bits set | ||||
| o TCP port scan attack | ||||
| o UDP spoofed broadcast echo (Fraggle Attack) | ||||
| o UDP attack on diag ports (Pepsi Attack) | ||||
| Intellectual Property Statement | Intellectual Property Statement | |||
| The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any | The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any | |||
| Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to | Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to | |||
| pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in | pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in | |||
| this document or the extent to which any license under such rights | this document or the extent to which any license under such rights | |||
| might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has | might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has | |||
| made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information | made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information | |||
| on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be | on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be | |||
| End of changes. 113 change blocks. | ||||
| 205 lines changed or deleted | 413 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ | ||||