[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-kivinen-ipsecme-esp-null-heuristics) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 RFC 5879

IP Security Maintenance and                                   T. Kivinen
Extensions (ipsecme)                                       Safenet, Inc.
Internet-Draft                                               D. McDonald
Intended status: Informational                    Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Expires: March 7, 2010                                 September 3, 2009


               Heuristics for Detecting ESP-NULL packets
             draft-ietf-ipsecme-esp-null-heuristics-01.txt

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on March 7, 2010.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
   publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.








Kivinen & McDonald        Expires March 7, 2010                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft      Heuristics for Detecting ESP-NULL     September 2009


Abstract

   This document describes a heuristic approach for distinguishing ESP-
   NULL (Encapsulating Security Payload without encryption) packets from
   encrypted ESP packets.  The reason for using heuristics instead of
   modifying ESP is to provide a solution that can be used now without
   updating all end nodes.  With heuristic methods, only the
   intermediate devices wanting to find ESP-NULL packets need to be
   updated.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1.  Applicability: Heuristic Traffic Inspection and
           Wrapped ESP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.2.  Requirements notation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Other Options  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.1.  AH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.2.  Mandating by Policy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.3.  Modifying ESP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   3.  Description of Heuristics  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   4.  IPsec flows  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   5.  Deep Inspection Engine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   6.  Special and Error Cases  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   7.  UDP encapsulation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   8.  Heuristic Checks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     8.1.  ESP-NULL format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     8.2.  Self Describing Padding Check  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     8.3.  Protocol Checks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
       8.3.1.  TCP checks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
       8.3.2.  UDP checks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
       8.3.3.  ICMP checks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
       8.3.4.  SCTP checks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
       8.3.5.  IPv4 and IPv6 Tunnel checks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   9.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   Appendix A.  Example Pseudocode  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     A.1.  Fastpath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     A.2.  Slowpath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33








Kivinen & McDonald        Expires March 7, 2010                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft      Heuristics for Detecting ESP-NULL     September 2009


1.  Introduction

   The ESP (Encapsulated Security Payload [RFC4303]) protocol can be
   used with NULL encryption [RFC2410] to provide authentication and
   integrity protection, but not confidentiality.  This offers similar
   properties to IPsec's AH (Authentication Header [RFC4302]).  The
   reason to use ESP-NULL instead of AH is that AH cannot be used if
   there are NATs (Network Address Translation devices) on the path.
   With AH it would be easy to detect packets which have only
   authentication and integrity protection, as AH has its own protocol
   number and deterministic packet length.  With ESP-NULL such detection
   is nondeterministic, in spite of the base ESP packet format being
   fixed.

   In some cases intermediate devices would like to detect ESP-NULL
   packets so they could perform deep inspection or enforce access
   control.  This kind of deep inspection includes virus detection, spam
   filtering, and intrusion detection.  As end nodes might be able to
   bypass those checks by using encrypted ESP instead of ESP-NULL, these
   kinds of scenarios also require very specific policies to forbid such
   circumvention.

   These sorts of policy requirements usually mean that the whole
   network needs to be controlled, i.e. under the same adminstrative
   domain.  Such setups are usually limited to inside the network of one
   enterprise or organization, and encryption is not used as the network
   is considered safe enough from eavesdroppers.

   Because the traffic inspected is usually host to host traffic inside
   one organization, that usually means transport mode IPsec is used.

   It should also be noted that even if new protocol modifications for
   ESP support easier detection of ESP-NULL in the future, this document
   will aid in transition of older end-systems.  That way, a solution
   can be implemented immediately, and not after a 5-10 year upgrade-
   and-deployment time frame.  Even with protocol modification for end
   nodes, the intermediate devices will need heuristics until they can
   assume that those protocol modifications can be found from all the
   end devices.  To make sure that any solution does not break in the
   future it would be best if such heuristics are documented, i.e. we
   need to publish an RFC for what to do now even when there might be a
   new protocol coming in the future that will solve the same problem
   better.

1.1.  Applicability: Heuristic Traffic Inspection and Wrapped ESP

   There are two ways to enable intermediate security devices to
   distinguish between encrypted and unencrypted ESP traffic:



Kivinen & McDonald        Expires March 7, 2010                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft      Heuristics for Detecting ESP-NULL     September 2009


      - The heuristics approach has the intermediate node inspect the
      unchanged ESP traffic, to determine with extremely high
      probability whether or not the traffic stream is encrypted.

      - The Wrapped ESP approach [I-D.ietf-ipsecme-traffic-visibility],
      in contrast, requires the ESP endpoints to be modified to support
      the new protocol.  WESP allows the intermediate node to
      distinguish encrypted and unencrypted traffic deterministically,
      using a simpler implementation for the intermediate node.

   Both approaches are being documented simultaneously by the IPsecME
   Working Group, with WESP being put on Standards Track while the
   heuristics approach is being published as an Informational RFC.
   While endpoints are being modified to adopt WESP, we expect both
   approaches to coexist for years, because the heuristic approach is
   needed to inspect traffic where at least one of the endpoints has not
   been modified.  In other words, intermediate nodes are expected to
   support both approaches in order to achieve good security and
   performance during the transition period.

1.2.  Requirements notation

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].


























Kivinen & McDonald        Expires March 7, 2010                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft      Heuristics for Detecting ESP-NULL     September 2009


2.  Other Options

   This document will discuss the heuristic approach of detecting ESP-
   NULL packets.  There are some other options which can be used, and
   this section will briefly discuss those.

2.1.  AH

   The most logical approach would use the already defined protocol
   which offers authentication and integrity protection, but not
   confidentiality, namely AH.  AH traffic is clearly marked as not
   encrypted, and can always be inspected by intermediate devices.

   Using AH has two problems.  First is that, as it also protects the IP
   headers, it will also protect against NATs on the path, thus it will
   not work if there is NAT on the path between end nodes.  In some
   environments this might not be a problem, but some environments
   include heavy use of NATs even inside the internal network of the
   enterprise or organization.  NAT-Traversal (NAT-T, [RFC3948]) could
   be extended to support AH also, and the early versions of the NAT-T
   proposals did include that, but it was left out as it was not seen as
   necessary.

   The another problem is that in the new IPsec Architecture [RFC4301]
   the support for AH is now optional, meaning not all implementations
   support it.  ESP-NULL has been defined to be mandatory to implement
   by Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation Requirements for
   Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) [RFC4835].

   AH has also quite complex processing rules compared to ESP when
   calculating the ICV, including things like zeroing out mutable
   fields.  As AH is not as widely used than ESP, the AH support is not
   as well tested in the interoperability events, meaning it might have
   more bugs than ESP implementations.

2.2.  Mandating by Policy

   Another easy way to solve this problem is to mandate the use of ESP-
   NULL with common parameters within an entire organization.  This
   either removes the need for heuristics (if no ESP encrypted traffic
   is allowed at all) or simplifies them considerably (only one set of
   parameters needs to be inspected, e.g. everybody in the organization
   who is using ESP-NULL must use HMAC-SHA-1-96 as their integrity
   algorithm).  This does not work if the machines are not under the
   same administrative domain.  Also, such a solution might require some
   kind of centralized policy management to make sure everybody uses the
   same policy.




Kivinen & McDonald        Expires March 7, 2010                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft      Heuristics for Detecting ESP-NULL     September 2009


2.3.  Modifying ESP

   Several internet drafts discuss ways of modifying ESP to offer
   intermediate devices information about an ESP packet's use of NULL
   encryption.  The following methods have been discussed: adding an IP-
   option, adding a new IP-protocol number plus an extra header
   [I-D.ietf-ipsecme-traffic-visibility], adding a new IP-protocol
   numbers which tell the ESP-NULL parameters
   [I-D.hoffman-esp-null-protocol], reserving an SPI range for ESP-NULL
   [I-D.bhatia-ipsecme-esp-null], and using UDP encapsulation with a
   different format and ports.

   All of the aforementioned drafts require modification to ESP, which
   requires that all end nodes needs to be modified before intermediate
   devices can assume that this new ESP format is in use.  Updating end
   nodes will require lots of time.  An example of the slowness of
   endpoint migration vs. intermediate migration can be seen from the
   IPv6 vs NAT case.  IPv6 required updating all of the end nodes (and
   routers too) before it could be effectively used.  This has taken a
   very long time, and IPv6 deployment is not yet widespread.  NAT, on
   the other hand, only required modifying an existing intermediate
   device or adding a new one, and has spread out much faster.  Another
   example of slow end-node deployment is IKEv2.  Considering an
   implementation that requires both IKEv2 and a new ESP format, it
   would take several years, possibly as long as a decade, before
   widespread deployment.

























Kivinen & McDonald        Expires March 7, 2010                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft      Heuristics for Detecting ESP-NULL     September 2009


3.  Description of Heuristics

   The heuristics to detect ESP-NULL packets will only require changes
   to the those intermediate devices which do deep inspection or other
   operations which require detecting ESP-NULL.  As those nodes require
   changes regardless of any ESP-NULL method, updating intermediate
   nodes is unavoidable.  Heuristics do not require updating or
   modifying any other devices on the rest of the network, including
   (and especially) end-nodes.

   In this document it is assumed that an affected intermediate node
   will act as a stateful interception device, meaning it will keep
   state of the flows - where flows are defined by the ESP SPI and IP
   addresses forming an IPsec SA - going through it.  The heuristics can
   also be used without storing any state, but performance will be worse
   in that case, as heuristic checks will need to be done for each
   packet, not only once per flow.  This will also affect the
   reliability of the heuristics.

   Generally, an intermediate node runs heuristics only for the first
   few packets of the new flow (i.e. the new IPsec SA).  After those few
   packets, the node detects parameters of the IPsec flow, it skips
   detection heuristics, and it can perform direct packet-inspecting
   action based on its own policy.  Once detected, ESP-NULL packets will
   never be detected as encrypted ESP packets, meaning that valid ESP-
   NULL packets will never bypass the deep inspection.  The only failure
   mode of these heuristics is to assume encrypted ESP packets are ESP-
   NULL packet, thus causing completely random packet data to be deeply
   inspected.  An attacker can easily send random-looking ESP-NULL
   packets which will cause heuristics to detect packets as encrypted
   ESP, but that is no worse than sending non-ESP fuzz through an
   intermediate node.

   For hardware implementations all the flow lookup based on the ESP
   next header number (50), source address, destination address, and SPI
   can be done by the hardware (there is usually already similar
   functionality there, for TCP/UDP flows).  The heuristics can be
   implemented by the hardware, but using software will allow faster
   updates when new protocol modifications come out or new protocols
   need support.











Kivinen & McDonald        Expires March 7, 2010                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft      Heuristics for Detecting ESP-NULL     September 2009


4.  IPsec flows

   ESP is a stateful protocol, meaning there is state stored in the both
   end nodes of the ESP IPsec SA, and the state is identified by the
   pair of destination IP and SPI.  End nodes also often fix the source
   IP address in an SA unless the destination is a multicast group.  As
   most (if not all) flows of interest to an intermediate device are
   unicast, it is safer to assume the receiving node also uses a source
   address, and the intermediate device should do the same.  In some
   cases this might cause extraneous cached ESP IPsec SA flows, but by
   using the source address two distinct flows will never be mixed.

   When the intermediate device sees an new ESP IPsec flow, i.e. a flow
   of ESP packets where the source address, destination address, and SPI
   number forms a triplet which has not been cached, it will start the
   heuristics to detect whether this flow is ESP-NULL or not.  These
   heuristics appear in the Section 8.

   When the heuristics finish, they will label the flow as either
   encrypted (which tells that packets in this flow are encrypted, and
   cannot be ESP-NULL packets) or as ESP-NULL.  This information, along
   with the ESP-NULL parameters detected by the heuristics, is stored to
   a flow cache, which will be used in the future when processing
   packets of the same flow.

   Both encrypted ESP and ESP-NULL flows are processed based on the
   local policy.  In normal operation encrypted ESP flows are passed
   through or dropped per local policy, and ESP-NULL flows are passed to
   the deep inspection engine.  Local policy will also be used to
   determine other packet-processing parameters.  Local policy issues
   will be clearly marked in this document to ease implementation.

   In some cases the heuristics cannot determine the type of flow from a
   single packet, and in that case it might need multiple packets before
   it can finish the process.  In those cases the heuristics return
   "unsure" status.  In that case the packet processed based on the
   local policy and flow cache is updated with "unsure" status.  Local
   policy for "unsure" packets could range from dropping (which
   encourages end-node retransmission) to queuing (which may preserve
   delivery, at the cost of artificially inflating round-trip times if
   they are measured).  When the next packet to the flow arrives, it is
   heuristically processed again, and the cached flow may continue to be
   "unsure", marked as ESP, or marked as an ESP-NULL flow.

   There are several reasons why a single packet might not be enough to
   detect type of flow.  One of them is that the next header number was
   unknown, i.e. if heuristics do not know about the protocol for the
   packet, it cannot verify it has properly detected ESP-NULL



Kivinen & McDonald        Expires March 7, 2010                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft      Heuristics for Detecting ESP-NULL     September 2009


   parameters, even when the packet otherwise looks like ESP-NULL.  If
   the packet does not look like ESP-NULL at all, then encrypted ESP
   status can be returned quickly.  As ESP-NULL heuristics should know
   the same protocols as a deep inspection device, an unknown protocol
   should not be handled any differently than a cleartext instance of an
   unknown protocol if possible.













































Kivinen & McDonald        Expires March 7, 2010                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft      Heuristics for Detecting ESP-NULL     September 2009


5.  Deep Inspection Engine

   A deep inspection engine running on an intermediate node usually
   checks deeply into the packet and performs policy decisions based on
   the contents of the packet.  The deep inspection engine should be
   able to tell the difference between success, failure, and garbage.
   Success means that a packet was successfully checked with the deep
   inspection engine, and it passed the checks and is allowed to be
   forwarded.  Failure means that a packet was successfully checked but
   the actual checks done indicated that packets should be dropped, i.e.
   the packet contained a virus, was a known attack, or something
   similar.

   Garbage means that the packet's protocol headers or other portions
   were unparseable.  For the heuristics, it would be useful if the deep
   inspection engine can differentiate the garbage and failure cases, as
   garbage cases can be used to detect certain error cases (e.g. where
   the ESP-NULL parameters are incorrect, or the flow is really an
   encrypted ESP flow, not an ESP-NULL flow).

   If the deep inspection engine will only return failure for all
   garbage packets in addition to real failure cases, then a system
   implementing the ESP-NULL heuristics cannot recover from error
   situations quickly.



























Kivinen & McDonald        Expires March 7, 2010                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft      Heuristics for Detecting ESP-NULL     September 2009


6.  Special and Error Cases

   There is a small probability that an encrypted ESP packet (which
   looks like contain completely random bytes) will have correct bytes
   in correct locations, such that heuristics will detect the packet as
   an ESP-NULL packet instead of detecting that it is encrypted ESP
   packet.  The actual probabilities will be computed later in this
   document.  Such a packet will not cause problems, as the deep
   inspection engine will most likely reject the packet and return that
   it is garbage.  If the deep inspection engine is rejecting a high
   number of packets as garbage, it might indicate an original ESP-NULL
   detection for the flow was wrong (i.e. an encrypted ESP flow was
   improperly detected as ESP-NULL).  In that case, the cached flow
   should be invalidated and discovery should happen again.

   Each ESP-NULL flow should also keep statistics about how many packets
   have been detected as garbage by deep inspection, how many have
   passed checks, or how many have failed checks with policy violations
   (i.e. failed because actual inspection policy failures, not because
   the packet looked like garbage).  If the number of garbage packets
   suddenly increases (e.g. most of the packets start to be look like
   garbage according to the deep inspection engine), it is possible the
   old ESP-NULL SA was replaced by an identical-SPI encrypting ESP SA.
   If both ends use random SPI generation, this is a very unlikely
   situation (1 in 2^32), but it is possible that some nodes reuse SPI
   numbers (e.g. a 32-bit memory address of the SA descriptor), thus
   this situation needs to be handled.

   Actual limits for cache invalidation are local policy decisions.
   Sample invalidation policies include: 50% of packets marked as
   garbage within a second; or if a deep inspection engine cannot
   differentiate between garbage and failure, failing more than 95% of
   packets in last 10 seconds.  For implementations that do not
   distinguish between garbage and failure, failures should not be
   treated too quickly as indication of SA reuse.  Often, single packets
   cause state-related errors that block otherwise normal packets from
   passing.














Kivinen & McDonald        Expires March 7, 2010                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft      Heuristics for Detecting ESP-NULL     September 2009


7.  UDP encapsulation

   The flow lookup code needs to detect UDP packets to or from port 4500
   in addition to the ESP packets, and perform similar processing to
   them after skipping the UDP header.  Each unique port pair makes
   separate IPsec flow, i.e.  UDP encapsulated IPsec flows are
   identified by the source and destination IP, source and destination
   port number and SPI number.  As devices might be using MOBIKE, that
   means that the flow cache should be shared between the UDP
   encapsulated IPsec flows and non encapsulated IPsec flows.  As
   previously mentioned, differentiating between garbage and actual
   policy failures will help in proper detection immensely.

   Because the checks are also run for packets having source port 4500
   in addition to those having destination port 4500, this might cause
   the checks to be run for non-ESP traffic too.  The UDP encapsulation
   processing should also be avare of that.  We cannot limit the checks
   for only UDP packets having destination port 4500, as return packets
   from the SGW going towards the NAT box do have source port 4500, and
   some other port as destination port.































Kivinen & McDonald        Expires March 7, 2010                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft      Heuristics for Detecting ESP-NULL     September 2009


8.  Heuristic Checks

   Normally, HMAC-SHA1-96 or HMAC-MD5-96 gives 1 out of 2^96 probability
   that a random packet will pass the HMAC test.  This yields a
   99.999999999999999999999999998% probability that an end node will
   correctly detect a random packet as being invalid.  This means that
   it should be enough for an intermediate device to check around 96
   bits from the input packet.  By comparing them against known values
   for the packet we get more or less same probability as an end node is
   using.  This gives an upper limit of how many bits heuristics need to
   check - there is no point of checking much more than that many bits
   (since that same probability is acceptable for the end node).  In
   most of the cases the intermediate device does not need that high
   probability, perhaps something around 32-64 bits is enough.

   IPsec's ESP has a well-understood packet layout, but its variable-
   length fields reduce the ability of pure algorithmic matching to one
   requiring heuristics and assigning probabilities.

8.1.  ESP-NULL format

   The ESP-NULL format is as follows:

        0                   1                   2                   3
        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |               Security Parameters Index (SPI)                 |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                      Sequence Number                          |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                    IV (optional)                              |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                    Payload Data (variable)                    |
       ~                                                               ~
       |                                                               |
       +               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |               |     Padding (0-255 bytes)                     |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                               |  Pad Length   | Next Header   |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |         Integrity Check Value-ICV   (variable)                |
       ~                                                               ~
       |                                                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                                 Figure 1

   The output of the heuristics should provide us information whether



Kivinen & McDonald        Expires March 7, 2010                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft      Heuristics for Detecting ESP-NULL     September 2009


   the packet is encrypted ESP or ESP-NULL.  In case it is ESP-NULL we
   also need to know the Integrity Check Value (ICV) field length and
   the Initialization Vector (IV) length.

   The currently defined ESP authentication algorithms have 5 different
   lengths for the ICV field.  Most commonly used is 96 bits for
   AUTH_HMAC_MD5_96, AUTH_HMAC_SHA1_96, AUTH_AES_XCBC_96, and
   AUTH_AES_CMAC_96 algorithms.  After that comes 128 bit ICV lengths
   for AUTH_HMAC_MD5_128, AUTH_HMAC_SHA2_256_128 AUTH_AES_128_GMAC,
   AUTH_AES_192_GMAC, AUTH_AES_256_GMAC algorithms. 160, 192, and 256
   bit field lengths are used by AUTH_HMAC_SHA1_160,
   AUTH_HMAC_SHA2_384_192, and AUTH_HMAC_SHA2_512_256 algorithms,
   respectively.

   In addition to the ICV length, there are also two possible values for
   IV lengths: zero bytes (default) and eight bytes (for
   AUTH_AES_*_GMAC).  Detecting the IV length requires understanding the
   payload, i.e. the actual protocol data (meaning TCP, UDP, etc).  This
   is required to distinguish the optional IV from the actual protocol
   data.  How well IV can be distinguished from the actual protocol data
   depends how the IV is generated.  If IV is generated using method
   that generates random looking data (i.e. encrypted counter etc) then
   disginguishing protocol data from IV is quite easy.  If IV is counter
   or similar non-random value, then there are bit more possibilities
   for error.  If the protocol (also known as the, "next header") of the
   packet is something that heuristics doesn't have protocol checking
   support, then detecting the IV length is impossible, thus the
   heuristics cannot finish.  In that case heuristics returns "unsure"
   and requires further packets.

8.2.  Self Describing Padding Check

   Before obtaining the next header field, the ICV length must be
   measured.  Five different ICV lengths leads to five possible places
   for the pad length and padding.  Implementations must be careful when
   trying larger sizes of ICV such that the inspected bytes do not
   belong to data that is not payload data.  For example, a ten-byte
   ICMP echo request will have zero-length padding, but any checks for
   256-bit ICVs will inspect sequence number or SPI data if the packet
   actually contains a 96-bit or 128-bit ICV.

   ICV lengths should always be checked from shorted to longest.  It is
   much more likely to obtain valid-looking padding bytes in the
   cleartext part of the payload than from the ICV field of a longer ICV
   than what is currently inspected.  For example, if a packet has a 96-
   bit ICV and implementation starts first checking for a 256-bit ICV,
   it is possible that the cleartext part of the payload contains valid
   looking bytes.  If done in the other order, i.e. a packet having a



Kivinen & McDonald        Expires March 7, 2010                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft      Heuristics for Detecting ESP-NULL     September 2009


   256-bit ICV and the implementation checks for a 96-bit ICV first, the
   inspected bytes are part of the longer ICV field, and should be
   indistinguishable from random noise.

   Each ESP packet always has between 0-255 bytes of padding, and
   payload, pad length, and next header are always right aligned within
   a 4-byte boundary.  Normally implementations use minimal amount of
   padding, but heuristics method would be even more reliable if some
   extra padding is added.  The actual padding data has bytes starting
   from 01 and ending to the pad length, i.e. exact padding and pad
   length bytes for 4 bytes of padding would be 01 02 03 04 04.

   Two cases of ESP-NULL padding are matched bytes (like the 04 04 shown
   above), or the zero-byte padding case.  In cases where there is one
   or more bytes of padding, a node can perform a very simple and fast
   test -- a sequence of N N in any of those five locations.  Given five
   two-byte locations (assuming the packet size allows all five possible
   ICV lengths), the upper-bound probability of finding a random
   encrypted packet that exhibits non-zero length ESP-NULL properties is
   1-(1-255/65536)^5 == 0.019 == 1.9%.  In the cases where there is 0
   bytes of padding, a random encrypted ESP packet has 1-(1-1/256)^5 ==
   0.019 == 1.9%.  Together, both cases yields a 3.8% upper-bound chance
   of misclassifying an encrypted packet as an ESP-NULL packet.

   In the matched bytes case, further inspection (counting the pad bytes
   backward and downward from the pad-length match) can reduce the
   number of misclassified packets further.  A padding length of 255
   means a specific 256^254 sequence of bytes must occur.  This
   virtually eliminates pairs of 'FF FF' as viable ESP-NULL padding.
   Every one of the 255 pairs for padding length N has only a 1 / 256^N
   probability of being correct ESP-NULL padding.  This shrinks the
   aforementioned 1.9% of matched-pairs to virtually nothing.

   At this point a maximum of 2% of packets remain, so the next header
   number is inspected.  If the next header number is known (and
   supported) then the packet can be inspected based on the next header
   number.  If the next header number is unknown (i.e. not any of those
   with protocol checking support) the packet is marked "unsure",
   because there is no way to detect the IV length without inspecting
   the inner protocol payload.

   There are six different next header fields which are in common use
   (TCP (6), UDP (17), ICMP (1), SCTP (132), IPv4 (4) and IPv6 (41)),
   and if IPv6 is in heavy use, that number increases to nine (Fragment
   (44), ICMPv6 (58), and IPv6 options (60)).  To insure that no packet
   is misinterpreted as an encrypted ESP packet even when it is ESP-NULL
   packet, a packet cannot be marked as a failure even when the next
   header number is one of those which is not known and supported.  In



Kivinen & McDonald        Expires March 7, 2010                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft      Heuristics for Detecting ESP-NULL     September 2009


   those cases the packet must be marked "unsure".

   An intermediate node's policy, however, can aid in detecting an ESP-
   NULL flow even when the protocol is not a common-case one.  By
   counting how many "unsure" returns obtained via heuristics, and after
   the receipt of a consistent, but unknown, next-header number of those
   with same ICV length (i.e. in same location) that means that flow is
   ESP-NULL with more probability than what it is to fool a given hash
   algorithm with a random packet.  The flow can be classified as ESP-
   NULL with a known ICV length, but an unknown IV length.

   Fortunately, in unknown protocol cases the IV length does not matter,
   as the protocol is unknown to the heuristics, it will most likely be
   unknown by the deep inspection engine also.  It is therefore
   important that heuristics should support at least those same
   protocols as the deep inspection engine does.  Upon receipt of any
   inner next header number that is known by the heuristics (and deep
   inspection engine), the heuristics can detect the IV length properly.

8.3.  Protocol Checks

   Generic protocol checking is much easier with pre-existing state.
   For example, when many TCP / UDP flows are established over one SA, a
   rekey with a new SA which needs heuristics.  Then it is enough to
   just check that if the flow is already known by the deep inspection
   engine, it will give a strong leaning that the new SA is really ESP-
   NULL.

   The worst case scenario is when an end node starts up communcation,
   i.e. it does not have any previous flows through the device.
   Heuristics will run on the first few packets received from the end
   node.  The later subsections mainly cover these bringup cases, as
   they are the most difficult.

   In the protocol checks there are two different types of checks.  The
   first check is for packet validity, i.e. certain locations must
   contain specific values.  For example, an inner IPv4 header of an
   IPv4 tunnel packet must have its 4-bit version number set to 4.  If
   it does not, the packet is not valid, and can be marked as a failure.
   Other positions depending on ICV and IV lengths must also be checked,
   and if all of them are failures, then the packet is a failure.  If
   any of the checks are "unsure" the packet is marked as such.

   The second type of check is for variable, but easy-to-parse values.
   For example, the 4-bit header length field of an inner IPv4 packet.
   It has a fixed value (5) as long as there are no inner IPv4 options.
   If the header-length has that specific value, the number of known
   "good" bits increases.  If it has some other value, the known "good"



Kivinen & McDonald        Expires March 7, 2010                [Page 16]

Internet-Draft      Heuristics for Detecting ESP-NULL     September 2009


   bit count stays the same.  A local policy might include reaching a
   bit count that is over a threshold (for example 96 bits), causing a
   packet to be marked as valid.

8.3.1.  TCP checks

   When the first TCP packet is feed to the heuristics, it is most
   likely going to be the SYN packet of the new connection, thus it will
   have less useful information than what other later packets might
   have.  Best valid packet checks include: checking that header length
   and reserved and other bits have valid values; checking source and
   destination port numbers, which in some cases can be used for
   heuristics (but in general they cannot be used to reliably
   distinguished from random numbers apart from some well-known ports
   like 25/80/110/143).

   The most obvious field, TCP checksum, might not be usable, as it is
   possible that the packet has already transitted a NAT box, thus the
   IP numbers used in the checksum are wrong, thus the checksum is
   wrong.  If the checksum is correct that can again be used to increase
   valid bit count, but verifying checksums is a costly operation, thus
   skipping that check might be best unless there is hardware to help
   the calculation.  Window size, urgent pointer, sequence number, and
   acknowledgement numbers can be used, but there is not one specific
   known value for them.

   One good method of detection is if the a packet is dropped then the
   next packet will most likely be a retransmission of the previous
   packet.  Thus if two packets are received with the same source, and
   destination port numbers, and where sequence numbers are either same
   or right after each other, then it's likely a TCP packet has been
   correctly detected.

   The deep inspection engines usually do very good TCP flow checking
   already, including flow tracking, verification of sequence numbers,
   and reconstruction of the whole TCP flow.  Similar methods can be
   used here, but they are implementation-dependent and not described
   here.

8.3.2.  UDP checks

   UDP header has even more problems than the TCP header, as UDP has
   even less known data.  The checksum has the same problem as the TCP
   checksum, due to NATs.  The UDP length field might not match the
   overall packet length, as the sender is allowed to include TFC
   (traffic flow confidentiality, see section 2.7 of IP Encapsulating
   Security Payload document [RFC4303]) padding.




Kivinen & McDonald        Expires March 7, 2010                [Page 17]

Internet-Draft      Heuristics for Detecting ESP-NULL     September 2009


   With UDP packets similar multiple packet methods can be used as with
   TCP, as UDP protocols usually include several packets using same port
   numbers going from one end node to another, thus receiving multiple
   packets having a known pair of UDP port numbers is good indication
   that the heuristics have passed.

   Some UDP protocols also use identical source and destination port
   numbers, thus that is also a good check.

8.3.3.  ICMP checks

   As ICMP messages are usually sent as return packets for other
   packets, they are not very common packets to get as first packets for
   the SA, the ICMP Echo message being a noteworthy exception.  ICMP
   ECHO has known type and code, identifier, and sequence number.  The
   checksum, however, might be incorrect again because of NATs.

   For error ICMP messages the ICMP message contains part of the
   original IP packet inside, and then same rules which are used to
   detect IPv4/IPv6 tunnel checks can be used.

8.3.4.  SCTP checks

   SCTP [RFC4960] has a self-contained checksum, which is computed over
   the SCTP payload and is not affected by NATs unless the NAT is SCTP-
   aware.  Even more than the TCP and UDP checksums, the SCTP checksum
   is expensive, and may be prohibitive even for deep-packet
   inspections.

   SCTP chunks can be inspected to see if their lengths are consistent
   across the total length of the IP datagram, so long as TFC padding is
   not present.

8.3.5.  IPv4 and IPv6 Tunnel checks

   In cases of tunneled traffic the packet inside contains a full IPv4
   or IPv6 packet.  Many fields are useable.  For IPv4 those fields
   include version, header length, total length (again TFC padding might
   confuse things there), protocol number, and 16-bit header checksum.
   In those cases the intermediate device should give the decapsulated
   IP packet to the deep inspection engine.  IPv6 has less usable
   fields, but the version number, packet length (modulo TFC confusion)
   and next-header all can be used by deep-packet inspection.








Kivinen & McDonald        Expires March 7, 2010                [Page 18]

Internet-Draft      Heuristics for Detecting ESP-NULL     September 2009


9.  Security Considerations

   The whole deep inspection for ESP-NULL flows only has the problem
   that attacker can always bypass it by using encrypted ESP (or some
   other encryption or tunneling method) instead of ESP-NULL unless that
   is not forbidden by policy.  This means that in the end the
   responsibility whether end node can bypass deep inspection is for the
   policy enforcement of the both end nodes, i.e. if a server allows
   encrypted connections also, then attacker who wants to attack the
   server and wants to bypass deep inspection device in the middle, will
   use encrypted traffic.  This means that the protection of the whole
   network is only as good as the policy enforcement and protection of
   the end node.  One way to enforce deep inspection for all traffic, is
   to forbid encrypted ESP completely, but in that case ESP-NULL
   detection is easier, as all packets must be ESP-NULL based on the
   policy, and further restriction can eliminate ambiguities in ICV and
   IV sizes.


































Kivinen & McDonald        Expires March 7, 2010                [Page 19]

Internet-Draft      Heuristics for Detecting ESP-NULL     September 2009


10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2410]  Glenn, R. and S. Kent, "The NULL Encryption Algorithm and
              Its Use With IPsec", RFC 2410, November 1998.

   [RFC4301]  Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
              Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.

   [RFC4302]  Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302,
              December 2005.

   [RFC4303]  Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
              RFC 4303, December 2005.

10.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.bhatia-ipsecme-esp-null]
              Bhatia, M., "Identifying ESP-NULL Packets",
              draft-bhatia-ipsecme-esp-null-00 (work in progress),
              December 2008.

   [I-D.hoffman-esp-null-protocol]
              Hoffman, P. and D. McGrew, "An Authentication-only Profile
              for ESP with an IP Protocol Identifier",
              draft-hoffman-esp-null-protocol-00 (work in progress),
              August 2007.

   [I-D.ietf-ipsecme-traffic-visibility]
              Grewal, K., Montenegro, G., and M. Bhatia, "Wrapped ESP
              for Traffic Visibility",
              draft-ietf-ipsecme-traffic-visibility-08 (work in
              progress), September 2009.

   [RFC3948]  Huttunen, A., Swander, B., Volpe, V., DiBurro, L., and M.
              Stenberg, "UDP Encapsulation of IPsec ESP Packets",
              RFC 3948, January 2005.

   [RFC4835]  Manral, V., "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation
              Requirements for Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and
              Authentication Header (AH)", RFC 4835, April 2007.

   [RFC4960]  Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol",
              RFC 4960, September 2007.



Kivinen & McDonald        Expires March 7, 2010                [Page 20]

Internet-Draft      Heuristics for Detecting ESP-NULL     September 2009


Appendix A.  Example Pseudocode

   This appendix is meant for the implementors.  It does not include all
   the required checks, and this is just example pseudocode, so final
   implementation can be very different.  It mostly lists things what
   needs to be done, but implementations can optimize things depending
   on their other parts.  For example implementation might combine
   heuristics and deep inspection tightly together.

A.1.  Fastpath

   The following example pseudocode show the fastpath part of the packet
   processing engine.  This part is usually implemented in hardware.


   ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
   // This pseudocode uses following variables:
   //
   // SPI_offset:    Number of bytes between start of protocol
   //                data and SPI. This is 0 for ESP, and
   //                8 for UDP encapsulated ESP (i.e skipping
   //                UDP header).
   //
   // IV_len:        Length of the IV of the ESP-NULL packet.
   //
   // ICV_len:       Length of the ICV of the ESP-NULL packet.
   //
   // State:         State of the packet, i.e. ESP-NULL, ESP, or
   //                unsure.
   //
   // Also following data is taken from the packet:
   //
   // IP_total_len:  Total IP packet length
   // IP_hdr_len:    Header length of IP packet in bytes
   // IP_Src_IP:     Source address of IP packet
   // IP_Dst_IP:     Destination address of IP packet
   //
   // UDP_len:       Length of the UDP packet taken from UDP header.
   // UDP_src_port:  Source port of UDP packet.
   // UDP_dst_port:  Destination port of UDP packet.
   //
   // SPI:           SPI number from ESP packet.
   //
   // Protocol:      Actual protocol number of the protocol inside
   //                ESP-NULL packet.
   // Protocol_off:  Calculated offset to the protocol payload data
   //                inside ESP-NULL packet.




Kivinen & McDonald        Expires March 7, 2010                [Page 21]

Internet-Draft      Heuristics for Detecting ESP-NULL     September 2009


   ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
   // This is the main processing code for the packet
   // This will check if the packet requires ESP processing,
   //
   Process packet:
     * If IP protocol is ESP
          * Set SPI_offset to 0 bytes
          * Goto Process ESP
     * If IP protocol is UDP
          * Goto Process UDP
     * Continue Non-ESP processing

   ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
   // This code is run for UDP packets, and it checks if the
   // packet is UDP encapsulated UDP packet, or UDP
   // encapsulated IKE packet, or keepalive packet.
   //
   Process UDP:
     // Reassembly is not mandatory here, we could
     // do reassembly also only after detecting the
     // packet being UDP encapsulated ESP packet, but
     // that would complicated the pseudocode here
     // a lot, as then we would need to add code
     // for checking if the UDP header is in this
     // packet or not.
     // Reassembly is to simplify things
     * If packet is fragment
          * Do full reassembly before processing
     * If UDP_src_port != 4500 and UDP_dst_port != 4500
          * Continue Non-ESP processing
     * Set SPI_offset to 8 bytes
     * If UDP_len > 4 and first 4 bytes of UDP packet are 0x000000
          * Continue Non-ESP processing (pass IKE-packet)
     * If UDP_len == 1 and first byte is 0xff
          * Continue Non-ESP processing (pass NAT-Keepalive Packet)
     * Goto Process ESP

   ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
   // This code is run for ESP packets (or UDP encapsulated ESP
   // packets). This checks if IPsec flow is known, and
   // if not calls heuristics. If IPsec flow is known
   // then it continues processing based on the policy.
   //
   Process ESP:
     * If packet is fragment
          * Do full reassembly before processing
     * If IP_total_len < IP_hdr_len + SPI_offset + 4
          * Drop invalid packet



Kivinen & McDonald        Expires March 7, 2010                [Page 22]

Internet-Draft      Heuristics for Detecting ESP-NULL     September 2009


     * Load SPI from IP_hdr_len + SPI_offset
     * Initialize State to ESP
     // In case this was UDP encapsulated ESP then use UDP_src_port and
     // UDP_dst_port also when finding data from SPI cache.
     * Find IP_Src_IP + IP_Dst_IP + SPI from SPI cache
     * If SPI found
          * Load State, IV_len, ICV_len from cache
     * If SPI not found or State is unsure
          * Call Autodetect ESP parameters (drop to slowpath)
     * If State is ESP
          * Continue Non-ESP-NULL processing
     * Goto Check ESP-NULL packet

   ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
   // This code is run for ESP-NULL packets, and this
   // finds out the data required for deep inspection
   // engine (protocol number, and offset to data)
   // and calls the deep inspection engine.
   //
   Check ESP-NULL packet:
     * If IP_total_len < IP_hdr_len + SPI_offset + IV_len + ICV_len
                    + 4 (spi) + 4 (seq no) + 4 (protocol + padding)
          * Drop invalid packet
     * Load Protocol from IP_total_len - ICV_len - 1
     * Set Protocol_off to
           IP_hdr_len + SPI_offset + IV_len + 4 (spi) + 4 (seq no)
     * Do normal deep inspection on packet.


                                 Figure 2

A.2.  Slowpath

   The following example pseudocode show the actual heuristics part of
   the packet processing engine.  This part is usually implemented in
   software.


   ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
   // This pseudocode uses following variables:
   //
   // SPI_offset, IV_len, ICV_len, State, SPI,
   // IP_total_len, IP_hdr_len, IP_Src_IP, IP_Dst_IP
   // as defined in fastpath pseudocode.
   //
   // Stored_Check_Bits:Number of bits we have successfully
   //                   checked to contain acceptable values
   //                   in the actual payload data. This value



Kivinen & McDonald        Expires March 7, 2010                [Page 23]

Internet-Draft      Heuristics for Detecting ESP-NULL     September 2009


   //                   is stored / retrieved from SPI cache.
   //
   // Check_Bits:       Number of bits we have successfully
   //                   checked to contain acceptable values
   //                   in the actual payload data. This value
   //                   is updated during the packet
   //                   verification.
   //
   // Last_Packet_Data: Contains selected pieces from the
   //                   last packet. This is used to compare
   //                   certain fields of this packet to
   //                   same fields in previous packet.
   //
   // Packet_Data:      Selected pieces of this packet, same
   //                   fields as Last_Packet_Data, and this
   //                   is stored as new Last_Packet_Data to
   //                   SPI cache after this packet is processed.
   //
   // Test_ICV_len:     Temporary ICV length used during tests.
   //                   This is stored to ICV_len when
   //                   padding checks for the packet succeed
   //                   and the packet didn't yet have unsure
   //                   status.
   //
   // Test_IV_len:      Temporary IV length used during tests.
   //
   // Pad_len:          Padding length from the ESP packet.
   //
   // Protocol:         Protocol number of the packet inside ESP
   //                   packet.
   //
   // TCP.*:            Fields from TCP header (from inside ESP)
   // UDP.*:            Fields from UDP header (from inside ESP)

   ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
   // This code starts the actual heuristics.
   // During this the fastpath has already loaded
   // State, ICV_len and IV_len in case they were
   // found from the SPI cache (i.e. in case the flow
   // had unsure status).
   //
   Autodetect ESP parameters:
     // First we check if this is unsure flow, and
     // if so, we check next packet against the
     // already set IV/ICV_len combination.
     * If State is unsure
          * Call Verify next packet
          * If State is ESP-NULL



Kivinen & McDonald        Expires March 7, 2010                [Page 24]

Internet-Draft      Heuristics for Detecting ESP-NULL     September 2009


               * Goto Store ESP-NULL SPI cache info
          * If State is unsure
               * Goto Verify unsure
          // If we failed the test, i.e. State
          // was changed to ESP, we check other
          // ICV/IV_len values, i.e. fall through
     // ICV lengths are tested in order of ICV lengths,
     // from shortest to longest.
     * Call Try standard algorithms
     * If State is ESP-NULL
          * Goto Store ESP-NULL SPI cache info
     * Call Try 128bit algorithms
     * If State is ESP-NULL
          * Goto Store ESP-NULL SPI cache info
     * Call Try 160bit algorithms
     * If State is ESP-NULL
          * Goto Store ESP-NULL SPI cache info
     * Call Try 192bit algorithms
     * If State is ESP-NULL
          * Goto Store ESP-NULL SPI cache info
     * Call Try 256bit algorithms
     * If State is ESP-NULL
          * Goto Store ESP-NULL SPI cache info
     // No idea how to test AUTH_DES_MAC and AUTH_KPDK_MD5 as they are
     // not defined anywhere
     // If any of those test above set state to unsure
     // we mark IPsec flow as unsure.
     * If State is unsure
          * Goto Store unsure SPI cache info
     // All of the test failed, meaning the packet cannot
     // be ESP-NULL packet, thus we mark IPsec flow as ESP
     * Goto Store ESP SPI cache info

   ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
   // Store ESP-NULL status to the IPsec flow cache.
   //
   Store ESP-NULL SPI cache info:
     * Store State, IV_len, ICV_len to SPI cache
             using IP_Src_IP + IP_Dst_IP + SPI as key
     * Continue Check ESP-NULL packet

   ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
   // Store encrypted ESP status to the IPsec flow cache.
   //
   Store ESP SPI cache info:
     * Store State, IV_len, ICV_len to SPI cache
             using IP_Src_IP + IP_Dst_IP + SPI as key
     * Continue Check non-ESP-NULL packet



Kivinen & McDonald        Expires March 7, 2010                [Page 25]

Internet-Draft      Heuristics for Detecting ESP-NULL     September 2009


   ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
   // Store unsure flow status to IPsec flow cache.
   // Here we also store the Check_Bits.
   //
   Store unsure SPI cache info:
     * Store State, IV_len, ICV_len,
             Stored_Check_Bits to SPI cache
             using IP_Src_IP + IP_Dst_IP + SPI as key
     * Contine Check unknown packet

   ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
   // Verify this packet against the previously selected
   // ICV_len and IV_len values. This will either
   // fail (and set state to ESP to mark we do not yet
   // know what type of flow this is), or it will
   // increment Check_Bits.
   //
   Verify next packet:
     // We already have IV_len, ICV_len and State loaded
     * Load Stored_Check_Bits, Last_Packet_Data from SPI Cache
     * Set Test_ICV_len to ICV_len, Test_IV_len to IV_len
     * Initialize Check_Bits to 0
     * Call Verify padding
     * If verify padding returned Failure
          // Initial guess was wrong, restart
          * Set State to ESP
          * Clear IV_len, ICV_len, State,
                  Stored_Check_Bits, Last_Packet_Data
                  from SPI Cache
          * Return
     // Ok, padding check succeeded again
     * Call Verify packet
     * If verify packet returned Failure
          // Guess was wrong, restart
          * Set State to ESP
          * Clear IV_len, ICV_len, State,
                  Stored_Check_Bits, Last_Packet_Data
                  from SPI Cache
          * Return
     // It succeeded and updated Check_Bits and Last_Packet_Data store
     // them to SPI cache
     * Increment Stored_Check_Bits by Check_Bits
     * Store Stored_Check_Bits to SPI Cache
     * Store Packet_Data as Last_Packet_Data to SPI cache
     * Return

   ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
   // This will check if we have already seen enough bits



Kivinen & McDonald        Expires March 7, 2010                [Page 26]

Internet-Draft      Heuristics for Detecting ESP-NULL     September 2009


   // acceptable from the payload data, so we can decide
   // that this IPsec flow is ESP-NULL flow.
   //
   Verify unsure:
     // Check if we have enough check bits
     * If Stored_Check_Bits > configured limit
          // We have checked enough bits, return ESP-NULL
          * Set State ESP-NULL
          * Goto Store ESP-NULL SPI cache info
     // Not yet enough bits, continue
     * Continue Check unknown packet

   ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
   // Check for standard 96-bit algorithms.
   //
   Try standard algorithms:
     // AUTH_HMAC_MD5_96, AUTH_HMAC_SHA1_96, AUTH_AES_XCBC_96,
     // AUTH_AES_CMAC_96
     * Set Test_ICV_len to 12, Test_IV_len to 0
     * Goto Check packet

   ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
   // Check for 128-bit algorithms, this is only one that
   // can have IV, so we need to check different IV_len values
   // here too.
   //
   Try 128bit algorithms:
     // AUTH_HMAC_MD5_128, AUTH_HMAC_SHA2_256_128
     // AUTH_AES_128_GMAC, AUTH_AES_192_GMAC, AUTH_AES_256_GMAC
     * Set Test_ICV_len to 16, Test_IV_len to 0
     * If IP_total_len < IP_hdr_len + SPI_offset
          + Test_IV_len + Test_ICV_len
          + 4 (spi) + 4 (seq no) + 4 (protocol + padding)
          * Return
     * Call Verify padding
     * If verify padding returned Failure
          * Return
     * Initialize Check_Bits to 0
     * Call Verify packet
     * If verify packet returned Failure
          * Goto Try GMAC
     // Ok, packet seemed ok, but go now and check if we have enough
     // data bits so we can assume it is ESP-NULL
     * Goto Check if done for unsure

   ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
   // Check for GMAC macs, i.e. macs having 8 byte IV.
   //



Kivinen & McDonald        Expires March 7, 2010                [Page 27]

Internet-Draft      Heuristics for Detecting ESP-NULL     September 2009


   Try GMAC:
     // AUTH_AES_128_GMAC, AUTH_AES_192_GMAC, AUTH_AES_256_GMAC
     * Set Test_IV_len to 8
     * If IP_total_len < IP_hdr_len + SPI_offset
          + Test_IV_len + Test_ICV_len
          + 4 (spi) + 4 (seq no) + 4 (protocol + padding)
          * Return
     * Initialize Check_Bits to 0
     * Call Verify packet
     * If verify packet returned Failure
          // Guess was wrong, continue
          * Return
     // Ok, packet seemed ok, but go now and check if we have enough
     // data bits so we can assume it is ESP-NULL
     * Goto Check if done for unsure

   ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
   // Check for 160-bit algorithms.
   //
   Try 160bit algorithms:
     // AUTH_HMAC_SHA1_160
     * Set Test_ICV_len to 20, Test_IV_len to 0
     * Goto Check packet

   ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
   // Check for 192-bit algorithms.
   //
   Try 192bit algorithms:
     // AUTH_HMAC_SHA2_384_192
     * Set Test_ICV_len to 24, Test_IV_len to 0
     * Goto Check packet

   ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
   // Check for 256-bit algorithms.
   //
   Try 256bit algorithms:
     // AUTH_HMAC_SHA2_512_256
     * Set Test_ICV_len to 32, Test_IV_len to 0
     * Goto Check packet

   ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
   // This actually does the checking for the packet, by
   // first verifying the length, and then self describing
   // padding, and if that succeeds, then checks the actual
   // payload content.
   //
   Check packet:
     * If IP_total_len < IP_hdr_len + SPI_offset



Kivinen & McDonald        Expires March 7, 2010                [Page 28]

Internet-Draft      Heuristics for Detecting ESP-NULL     September 2009


          + Test_IV_len + Test_ICV_len
          + 4 (spi) + 4 (seq no) + 4 (protocol + padding)
          * Return
     * Call Verify padding
     * If verify padding returned Failure
          * Return
     * Initialize Check_Bits to 0
     * Call Verify packet
     * If verify packet returned Failure
          // Guess was wrong, continue
          * Return
     // Ok, packet seemed ok, but go now and check if we have enough
     // data bits so we can assume it is ESP-NULL
     * Goto Check if done for unsure

   ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
   // This code checks if we have seen enough acceptable
   // values in the payload data, so we can decide that this
   // IPsec flow is ESP-NULL flow.
   //
   Check if done for unsure:
     * If Stored_Check_Bits > configured limit
          // We have checked enough bits, return ESP-NULL
          * Set State ESP-NULL
          * Set IV_len to Test_IV_len, ICV_len to Test_ICV_len
          * Clear Stored_Check_Bits, Last_Packet_Data from SPI Cache
          * Return
     // Not yet enough bits, check this is first unsure, if so
     // store information. In case there is multiple
     // tests succeeding, we always assume the first one
     // (the wone using shortest MAC) is the one we want to
     // check in the future.
     * If State is not unsure
          * Set State unsure
          // These values will be stored to SPI cache if
          // the final state will be unsure
          * Set IV_len to Test_IV_len, ICV_len to Test_ICV_len
          * Set Stored_Check_Bits as Check_Bits
     * Return

   ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
   // Verify self describing padding
   //
   Verify padding:
     * Load Pad_len from IP_total_len - Test_ICV_len - 2
     * Verify padding bytes at
                  IP_total_len - Test_ICV_len - 1 - Pad_len ..
                  IP_total_len - Test_ICV_len - 2 are



Kivinen & McDonald        Expires March 7, 2010                [Page 29]

Internet-Draft      Heuristics for Detecting ESP-NULL     September 2009


                  1, 2, ..., Pad_len
     * If Verify of padding bytes succeeded
          * Return Success
     * Return Failure

   ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
   // This will verify the actual protocol content inside ESP
   // packet.
   //
   Verify packet:
     // We need to first check things that cannot be set, i.e if any of
     // those are incorrect, then we return Failure. For any
     / fields which might be correct, we increment the Check_Bits
     // for a suitable amount of bits. If all checks pass, then
     // we just return Success, and the upper layer will then
     // later check if we have enough bits checked already.
     * Load Protocol From IP_total_len - Test_ICV_len - 1
     * If Protocol TCP
          * Goto Verify TCP
     * If Protocol UDP
          * Goto Verify UDP
     // Other protocols can be added here as needed, most likely same
     // protocols as deep inspection does
     // Tunnel mode checks is also left out from here to make the
     // document shorter.
     * Return Failure

   ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
   // Verify TCP protocol headers
   //
   Verify TCP:
     // First we check things that must be set correctly.
     * Check TCP.reserved_bits are non-zero
         * Return Failure
     * If TCP.Data_Offset field < 5
         // TCP head length too small
         * Return Failure
     // After that we start to check things that does not
     // have one definitive value, but can have multiple possible
     // valid values
     * If TCP.ACK bit is not set, then check
          that TCP.Acknowledgment_number field contains 0
          // If ACK bit is not set then the acknowledgment
          // field usually contains 0, but I do not think
          // RFCs mandate it being zero, so we cannot make
          // this a failure if it is not so.
          * Increment Check_Bits by 32
     * If TCP.URG bit is not set, then check



Kivinen & McDonald        Expires March 7, 2010                [Page 30]

Internet-Draft      Heuristics for Detecting ESP-NULL     September 2009


          that TCP.Urgent_Pointer field contains 0
          // If URG bit is not set then urgent pointer
          // field usually contains 0, but I do not think
          // RFCs mandate it being zero, so we cannot make
          // this failure if  it is not so.
          * Increment Check_Bits by 16
     * If TCP.Data_Offset field == 5
         * Increment Check_Bits by 4
     * If TCP.Data_Offset field > 5
         * If TCP options format is valid and it is padded correctly
              * Increment Check_Bits accordingly
         * If TCP options format was garbage
              * Return Failure
     * If TCP.checksum is correct
         // This might be wrong because packet passed NAT, so
         // we cannot make this failure case
         * Increment Check_Bits by 16
     // We can also do normal deeper TCP inspection here, i.e.
     // check that SYN/ACK/FIN/RST bits are correct and state
     // matches the state of existing flow if this is packet
     // to existing flow etc.
     // If there is anything clearly wrong in the packet (i.e.
     // some data is set to something that it cannot be), then
     // this can return Failure, otherwise it should just
     // increment Check_Bits matching the number of bits checked.
     //
     // We can also check things here compared to the last packet
     * If Last_Packet_Data.TCP.source port =
          Packet_Data.TCP.source_port and
          Last_Packet_Data.TCP.destination port =
          Packet_Data.TCP.destination port
          * Increment Check_Bits by 32
     * If Last_Packet_Data.TCP.acknowledgement_number =
          Packet_Data.TCP.acknowledgement_number
          * Increment Check_Bits by 32
     * If Last_Packet_Data.TCP.sequence_number =
          Packet_Data.TCP.sequence_number
          * Increment Check_Bits by 32
     // We can do other similar checks here
     * Return Success

   ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
   // Verify UDP protocol headers
   //
   Verify UDP:
     // First we check things that must be set correctly.
     * If UDP.UDP_length > IP_total_len - IP_hdr_len - SPI_offset
         - Test_IV_len - Test_ICV_len - 4 (spi)



Kivinen & McDonald        Expires March 7, 2010                [Page 31]

Internet-Draft      Heuristics for Detecting ESP-NULL     September 2009


         - 4 (seq no) - 1 (protocol)
         - Pad_len - 1 (Pad_len)
         * Return Failure
     * If UDP.UDP_length < 8
         * Return Failure
     // After that we start to check things that does not
     // have one definitive value, but can have multiple possible
     // valid values
     * If UDP.UDP_checksum is correct
         // This might be wrong because packet passed NAT, so
         // we cannot make this failure case
         * Increment Check_Bits by 16
     * If UDP.UDP_length = IP_total_len - IP_hdr_len - SPI_offset
          - Test_IV_len - Test_ICV_len - 4 (spi)
          - 4 (seq no) - 1 (protocol)
          - Pad_len - 1 (Pad_len)
          // If there is no TFC padding then UDP_length
          // will be matching the full packet length
          * Increment Check_Bits by 16
     // We can also do normal deeper UDP inspection here.
     // If there is anything clearly wrong in the packet (i.e.
     // some data is set to something that it cannot be), then
     // this can return Failure, otherwise it should just
     // increment Check_Bits matching the number of bits checked.
     //
     // We can also check things here compared to the last packet
     * If Last_Packet_Data.UDP.source_port =
          Packet_Data.UDP.source_port and
          Last_Packet_Data.destination_port =
          Packet_Data.UDP.destination_port
          * Increment Check_Bits by 32
     * Return Success


                                 Figure 3
















Kivinen & McDonald        Expires March 7, 2010                [Page 32]

Internet-Draft      Heuristics for Detecting ESP-NULL     September 2009


Authors' Addresses

   Tero Kivinen
   Safenet, Inc.
   Fredrikinkatu 47
   HELSINKI  FIN-00100
   FI

   Email: kivinen@iki.fi


   Daniel L. McDonald
   Sun Microsystems, Inc.
   35 Network Drive
   MS UBUR02-212
   Burlington, MA  01803
   USA

   Email: danmcd@sun.com
































Kivinen & McDonald        Expires March 7, 2010                [Page 33]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/