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

Versions: 00 01

Operational Security                                            F. Baker
Internet-Draft                                           G. Van de Velde
Updates: 792, 4443 (if approved)                           Cisco Systems
Intended status: Standards Track                         October 7, 2012
Expires: April 10, 2013


                          Passive IP Addresses
                draft-baker-opsec-passive-ip-address-01

Abstract

   This note suggests an approach to minimizing the attack surface of
   the network elements - routers, switches, and middleware - of a
   network.

Status of this Memo

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

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 10, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 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
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.




Baker & Van de Velde     Expires April 10, 2013                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft            Passive IP Addresses              October 2012


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     1.2.  Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     1.3.  Examples of attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  Proposal  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
     2.1.  Making the address useless  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     2.2.  ICMP/ICMPv6 handling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
     2.3.  Removing the address from routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
     2.4.  DNS and Reverse DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   3.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
     4.1.  Privacy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   5.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   6.  Change Log  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9































Baker & Van de Velde     Expires April 10, 2013                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft            Passive IP Addresses              October 2012


1.  Introduction

   This note suggests an approach to minimizing the attack surface of
   the network elements - routers, switches, and middleware - of a
   network.

1.1.  Requirements Language

   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].

1.2.  Problem Statement

   The problem, at least in its first instance, is a side effect of
   diagnostics used in the Internet.  Tools such as mtr, traceroute, and
   pingplotter operate by sending streams of packets to a remote address
   with varying hop limit values in IPv6 [RFC2460] or Time to Live in
   IPv4 [RFC0791], and receiving ICMP [RFC0792] or ICMPv6 [RFC4443]
   messages that indicate which interfaces the packet stream traversed
   in the forward direction.  Path MTU [RFC1191] [RFC1981] discovery
   depends on ICMP/ICMPv6 Packet Too Big. Various ICMP/ICMPv6
   "unreachable" messages respond when routing fails, which are intended
   to trigger applications to try other peer addresses
   [I-D.ietf-v6ops-happy-eyeballs], and so on.  The IP addresses of
   these responders can be looked up in Reverse DNS [RFC1033][RFC1912]
   to build a name that indicates the operator, POP, and equipment in
   question, which is useful in identifying potential problems in the
   path.

   Unfortunately, those addresses can also be used in another way.  A
   motivated adversary can subject routers to TCP RST attacks, load-
   based DDOS, and other attacks.

   An alternate way to reduce this potential attack vector is to not use
   addresses that are valid beyond the link it is attached towards.  A
   sollution describing considerations around this is given in
   [draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only] while passive IPv6 addresses will provide
   network path visibility withought increasing large extend of
   vulnerability for the devices using down the traffic path.

1.3.  Examples of attacks

   To pick one example, attacks are being reported in which residential
   broadband customer's CPE Router is targeted with large volume SNMP
   GET Requests.  The address of the router is not generally known; in
   IPv4, that may be a result of NAPT use, with the address being
   harvested from exchanges.  It may be obtained from a traceroute to a



Baker & Van de Velde     Expires April 10, 2013                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft            Passive IP Addresses              October 2012


   server behind the router, or it may be determined by analysis of SMTP
   envelopes.

   Another example is attacks on BGP peering.  BGP neighbors often peer
   between the loopback addresses of neighboring routers, to make the
   TCP session stable in the presence of link outages, but may peer
   using interface addresses.  If a router is configured to use
   interface addresses in ICMP/ICMPv6 messages and to peer using those
   same addresses, the ICMP response exposes information that can be
   used in a RST attack on routing.  It also facilitates any other kind
   of attack on the router, such as the previously noted SNMP attack
   (even if the router knows to refuse the message, it consumes CPU).
   If global addresses are not used - routers use link-local or private
   addresses - that makes it harder for an attacker to attack the
   router, but it means that traceroute and other uses are compromised,
   which is an attack on network forensics.  If link-local addresses are
   used on the interfaces and ICMP is configured to use the loopback
   address, the router is again exposed to RST attacks.


2.  Proposal

   The simplest solution seems to be to enable the router to hide in
   plain sight - to use an address as the source address in ICMP and
   other messages that is identifiable using Reverse DNS (and therefore,
   through the name, useful for network diagnostics and communication
   between operators), but does not facilitate attacks.

   The fundamental theory behind this proposal is the Principle of Least
   Privilege, which in this application is that an entity in the
   Internet must be able to access only the information and resources
   that are necessary for its legitimate purpose.  In this case, it is
   reasonable, for various reasons, to enable a random user to identify
   the path his or her traffic is using or to identify a system in his
   path when reporting operational issues to an administration.  It is
   not reasonable, or at least not required, that the user be able to
   specifically interact with any of those systems in the general case.

   We propose that the source IP address in an ICMP/ICMPv6 message, or
   indeed any message sent to a host that has no inherent need to
   contact the specific system, be useful for Reverse DNS, but not for
   touching the system.  Ideally, it is not routable to the system in
   the first place; The passive character of this type of addres address
   comes to play if a packet with this address as destination address on
   a targetted device and is delivered to the interface, it is summarily
   dropped.  Such an address is referred to as a "passive address", and
   if it comes from a specific prefix, the prefix is referred to as a
   "passive prefix".  Addresses that are routable and not dropped on



Baker & Van de Velde     Expires April 10, 2013                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft            Passive IP Addresses              October 2012


   receipt will, for the purposes of this specification, be called
   "active" IP addresses.

   A passive address is sementically non-disguisable from any other type
   of address and has no requirement for any new type of address-family.
   Any IPv4 or IPv6 address can become a passive address by a
   configuration knob when specifying the interface IP address for the
   Interface or device.

2.1.  Making the address useless

   Every interface in the Internet has an address, with the exception of
   IPv4 unnumbered interfaces; even those have addresses that they use,
   which are the actual address of some other interface on the same
   system.  Increasingly, this is in fact a list of addresses, some of
   which are IPv4 and some of which are IPv6.

   We propose that any address allocated to an interface on
   infrastructure equipment be given two binary attributes:

   UseInICMP:  If the address has this attribute TRUE, the corresponding
      address may be used as the source address of ICMP or ICMPv6
      messages and other messages sent to hosts that have no need to
      actually touch the system.  It is otherwise FALSE.

   Respond:  If the address has this attribute TRUE, the device will
      process and respond to packets it receives that have this as a
      destination address; it is an active address.  If the attribute is
      FALSE, the address is a passive address.

   If UseInICMP is set TRUE on a Global Unicast Address or Unique Local
   Address, the address will be available for use in ICMP messages.  If
   "Respond" is set TRUE, traffic sent to the address will be served in
   the usual way.  This describes the present Internet usage.  If
   Respond is set FALSE, traffic sent to the address will be summarily
   discarded, in effect presenting a "local firewall" blockage related
   to the address.

   An address that has UseInICMP set FALSE will not be used as the
   source address of an ICMP message.  That address will be
   indiscoverable via ICMP messages.  If Respond is TRUE and the address
   becomes known by other means, such as DNS, traffic sent to the
   address will be served in the usual way.  If Respond is set FALSE,
   traffic sent to the address will be summarily discarded, in effect
   presenting a "local firewall" blockage related to the address.

   The scenario in view here is that




Baker & Van de Velde     Expires April 10, 2013                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft            Passive IP Addresses              October 2012


   o  an address that is used to access the system would have UseInICMP
      FALSE (the address is not leaked in such messages) and Respond
      TRUE (messages sent to the address MAY be operated on by the
      system).

   o  an address that is used in ICMP and similar messages would have
      UseInICMP TRUE (the address MAY be leaked in such messages) and
      Respond FALSE (messages sent to the address will be dropped on
      receipt).

2.2.  ICMP/ICMPv6 handling

   Per [RFC4443], an ICMP Response such as Time Exceeded or Parameter
   Problem is sent from "the" source address of the interface that
   detected the issue.  This specification narrows that: it SHOULD use
   one of the source addresses that have the attribute UseInICMP set to
   TRUE.  If no address has that attribute TRUE, it SHOULD NOT send the
   message.

2.3.  Removing the address from routing

   If the passive address is taken from any prefix that is not
   advertised in routing, it will be difficult for an adversary to route
   to the address, which simplifies the treatment of certain forms of
   attacks.  It is not impossible; a system on the same LAN could send a
   crafted packet that would arrive anyway.  However, especially in
   inter-domain routing, it is often quite reasonable to believe that
   addresses exist that need not be advertised to a neighboring network.

   One example of such an address, in IPv6, might be a Unique Local IPv6
   Unicast Address [RFC4193], or a global unicast address or prefix.
   There are obvious operational issues in the use of a global prefix;
   it is easy to accidentally advertise it.  In an IPv4 network, the
   counterpart might be to use an [RFC1918] address, or to use another
   prefix that one chooses to not advertise.

   Link Local addresses SHOULD NOT be used in this context; while they
   are obviously unroutable except on the local LAN, they are not useful
   in Reverse DNS.

   One problem with this relates to Ingress Filtering [RFC2827].  If the
   prefix used for passive addresses is not advertised to the
   neighboring network and the neighboring network is using unicast
   reverse path filtering, it will filter these responses.  For this
   reason, a network doing this SHOULD advise neighboring networks of
   passive prefixes for the purpose of inclusion in ingress filters.





Baker & Van de Velde     Expires April 10, 2013                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft            Passive IP Addresses              October 2012


2.4.  DNS and Reverse DNS

   [RFC1912] recommends that "For every IP address, there should be a
   matching PTR record in the in-addr.arpa domain."  In IPv6, there is
   an important special case, in that link-local addresses are not
   reflected there, and are used in routing protocols for local
   communication among IPv6 routers.  Like other addresses, passive IP
   addresses SHOULD have a corresponding Reverse DNS entry; these names
   help with traceroute and in fault diagnosis.  While active addresses
   may be expected to have A or AAAA records in the administration's own
   DNS, there is little point for doing so for passive addresses, as
   they are unresponsive and very likely unreachable.

   However, the names given to passive addresses SHOULD NOT be directly
   similar to the names given active IP addresses.  For example, it may
   be useful to name the interfaces on a certain router so as to
   identify the router - "ethernet7.card3.router5.lax.example.com".  If
   the correlation to the name of the loopback interface
   ("router5.lax.example.com") is obviously derivative, the security
   value is largely forfeit, although it might require human
   interaction.  Such names should differ enough that they are not
   readily intuited, such as "rack12.lax.example.com".


3.  IANA Considerations

   This memo asks the IANA for no new parameters.

   Note to RFC Editor: This section will have served its purpose if it
   correctly tells IANA that no new assignments or registries are
   required, or if those assignments or registries are created during
   the RFC publication process.  From the author's perspective, it may
   therefore be removed upon publication as an RFC at the RFC Editor's
   discretion.


4.  Security Considerations

   This entire note could be described as addressing a set of security
   considerations.  It is not a complete solution to attacks on
   infrastructure - if loopback addresses, which are used for network
   management and other purposes are generally known, the infrastructure
   can still be attacked.  However, it is an important reduction of the
   attack surface.  It creates no attack surface that did not already
   exist.






Baker & Van de Velde     Expires April 10, 2013                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft            Passive IP Addresses              October 2012


4.1.  Privacy Considerations

   This proposal also introduces no new privacy issues.


5.  Acknowledgements

   This document grew from a conversation among the authors, John
   Brzozowski, and Thienpondt Hans.  Merike Keao's review was very
   helpful.


6.  Change Log

   Initial Version:  1 March 2012

   2th version:  7 October 2012


7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [RFC0791]  Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
              September 1981.

   [RFC0792]  Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
              RFC 792, September 1981.

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

   [RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.

   [RFC4443]  Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, "Internet Control
              Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol
              Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, March 2006.

7.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-v6ops-happy-eyeballs]
              Wing, D. and A. Yourtchenko, "Happy Eyeballs: Success with
              Dual-Stack Hosts", draft-ietf-v6ops-happy-eyeballs-07
              (work in progress), December 2011.

   [RFC1033]  Lottor, M., "Domain administrators operations guide",
              RFC 1033, November 1987.



Baker & Van de Velde     Expires April 10, 2013                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft            Passive IP Addresses              October 2012


   [RFC1191]  Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191,
              November 1990.

   [RFC1912]  Barr, D., "Common DNS Operational and Configuration
              Errors", RFC 1912, February 1996.

   [RFC1918]  Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and
              E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
              BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996.

   [RFC1981]  McCann, J., Deering, S., and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery
              for IP version 6", RFC 1981, August 1996.

   [RFC2827]  Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering:
              Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source
              Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, May 2000.

   [RFC4193]  Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast
              Addresses", RFC 4193, October 2005.

   [draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only]
              , M., "Using Only Link-Local Addressing Inside an IPv6
              Network", 20012.


Authors' Addresses

   Fred Baker
   Cisco Systems
   Santa Barbara, California  93117
   USA

   Email: fred@cisco.com


   Gunter Van de Velde
   Cisco Systems
   De Kleetlaan 6a
   Diegem  1831
   Belgium

   Phone: +32 2704 5473
   Email: gvandeve@cisco.com








Baker & Van de Velde     Expires April 10, 2013                 [Page 9]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/