[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]
Versions: (draft-bonica-opsec-nmasc) 00
OPSEC R. Bonica
Internet-Draft Juniper Networks
Expires: August 7, 2006 S. Ahmed
Booz Allen Hamilton
February 3, 2006
Network Management Access Security Capabilities
draft-ietf-opsec-nmasc-00
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of 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 August 7, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
This document describes how network management stations can
communicate with the devices that they manage using either the in-
band network, an out-of-band network, or a virtual out-of-band
network. This document also evaluates each access method in terms of
its security capabilities and lists the device capabilities needed to
support each method.
Bonica & Ahmed Expires August 7, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Network Management Access February 2006
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Conventions Used In This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Network Management Access Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. In-band Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Vulnerabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Required Security Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Out-of-Band Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Vulnerabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Required Security Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Virtual Out-of-Band Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Virtual Out-of-Band Access using VPNs . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1.1. Vulnerabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1.2. Required Security Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1.3. Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. Virtual Out-of-Band Access using CoS . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2.1. Vulnerabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2.2. Required Security Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2.3. Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 13
Bonica & Ahmed Expires August 7, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Network Management Access February 2006
1. Introduction
The Framework for Operational Security Capabilities [4] outlines the
proposed effort of the IETF OPSEC working group. This includes
producing a series of drafts to codify knowledge gained through
operational experience about feature sets that are needed to securely
deploy and operate managed network elements providing transit
services at the data link and IP layers. Current plans include
separate capabilities documents for Packet Filtering; Event Logging;
In-Band and Out-of-Band Management; Configuration and Management
Interfaces; AAA; and Documentation and Assurance.
This document describes in-band management, out-of-band-management,
and a hybrid approach, called virtual out-of-band management.
1.1. Conventions Used In This Document
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. Network Management Access Methods
Network management stations can communicate with the devices that
they manage using either the in-band network, an out-of-band network,
or a virtual out-of-band network. The following sections describe
each of the above mentioned network management access methods.
3. In-band Access
User1----- R1----User2
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
R2--------R3
/ \ / \
/ \ / \
/ \ / \
NMS1 User3 User4 NMS2
Figure 1: In-Band Access
Bonica & Ahmed Expires August 7, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Network Management Access February 2006
Figure 1 depicts two network management stations (NMS1 and NMS2)
managing three routers (R1-R3). Network management stations use the
in-band network to communicate with the routers that they manage.
Therefore, network management traffic is intermixed with user traffic
on in-band network interfaces.
3.1. Vulnerabilities
RFC 3871 [2] identifies the following security vulnerabilities
associated with in-band management:
1. Saturation of customer lines or interfaces can make the device
unmanageable unless out-of-band management resources have been
reserved.
2. Since public interfaces/channels are used, it is possible for
attackers to directly address and reach the device and to attempt
management functions.
3. In-band management traffic on public interfaces may be
intercepted, however this would typically require a significant
compromise in the routing system.
4. Public interfaces used for in-band management may become
unavailable due to bugs (e.g., buffer overflows being exploited)
while out-of-band interfaces (such as a serial console device)
remain available.
Expanding upon the final point, listed above, the in-band network can
be misconfigured, such that the managed device becomes isolated with
regard to the network management stations. Similarly, DoS attacks
against the routers or routing protocols, instability in the routing
protocols, or other problems could cause the in-band network to
become unavailable. When this happens, operators cannot access the
router in order to remedy the configuration error. They become
reliant upon physical access to the managed device.
3.2. Required Security Capabilities
RFC 3871 requires the following security capabilities to mitigate the
effects of the above mentioned vulnerabilities:
1. Increased priority for management traffic.
2. Use of strong cryptography
3. Selection of cryptographic parameters
Bonica & Ahmed Expires August 7, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Network Management Access February 2006
4. Use of cryptographic algorithms subject to open review
5. Use of management protocols subject to open review
3.3. Analysis
The cryptographic methods mentioned in Section 3.2 prevent users from
accessing management functions and eavesdropping on management
traffic. The strength of the cryptographic algorithms deployed
should be a determined by cost and perceived threat.
Increasing the priority of management traffic reduces, but does not
eliminate, the risk associated with denial of service attacks against
the router's management plane. In order to completely eliminate this
risk, a network would have to police high priority traffic at each
ingress point as well as elevate the priority of management traffic.
See Section 5.2 below and also see section 4 of [5].
None of the capabilities mentioned in Section 3.2 address the final
vulnerability mentioned in Section 3.1. Failure of the in-band
network will render the network unmanageable. This is an inherent
weakness of in-band management.
4. Out-of-Band Access
NMS1 NMS2
\ /
Management
Network
/|\
/ | \
/ | \
/ R1 \
| / \ |
| /User \ |
|/Network\|
R2--------R3
/ \ / \
/ \ / \
/ \ / \
NMS1 User3 User4 NMS2
Figure 2: Out-of-Band Access
Figure 2 also depicts two network management stations managing three
Bonica & Ahmed Expires August 7, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Network Management Access February 2006
routers. In this figure, the network management stations use a
dedicated, out-of-band network to communicate with the routers that
they manage.
Each router maintains a dedicated management interface. The
dedicated management interface is connected to the dedicated, out-of-
band management network. Management functions are accessible only
through the dedicated management interface. They are not accessible
through any other interfaces.
RFC 3871 assumes the following regarding out-of-band management:
- The out-of-band management network is secure
- There is no need for encryption of communication on out-of-band
management interfaces
- Security measures are in place to prevent unauthorized physical
access
4.1. Vulnerabilities
Although RFC 3871 does not explicitly identify this as a
vulnerability, if a router maintains only one dedicated management
interface, that interface constitutes a single point of failure. If
the dedicated management interface fails, the router will become
unmanageable (although it will continue to forward traffic).
Therefore, a router should maintain at least two connections to the
management network. Many networks solve this problem by connecting
both the dedicated management interface and a terminal server to the
out-of-band management network.
4.2. Required Security Capabilities
RFC 3871 states that routers must not forward traffic between
dedicated management interfaces and non-management interfaces. The
router must never forward a datagram received from a non-management
interface through the dedicated management interface. Likewise, the
router must never forward a datagram received from the dedicated
management interface through a non-management interface.
Operators should refrain from activating dynamic routing protocols on
the dedicated management interface. Alternatively, they should rely
upon direct or static routes. If static routes are configured, they
should be as specific as possible.
Bonica & Ahmed Expires August 7, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Network Management Access February 2006
4.3. Analysis
Out-of-band management networks isolate network users from
communication channels that are dedicated to network management.
Therefore, network users cannot access management functions,
eavesdrop on management traffic or launch denial of service attacks
against the network management plane.
Although the dedicated management interface is somewhat susceptible
to misconfiguration, it is less susceptible because its configuration
is so simple (i.e., limited to interface definition and a few static
routes).
5. Virtual Out-of-Band Access
5.1. Virtual Out-of-Band Access using VPNs
-----
a\ /mgmt
\ /
User1---- R1----User2
/ \
|\a / \ a/|
| \ / \ / |
--R2--------R3---
mgmt / \ / \ mgmt
/ \ / \
/ \ / \
NMS1 User3 User4 NMS2
Figure 3: Virtual Out-of-Band Access using VPNs
Figure 3 is identical to Figure 1, except that three loop circuits
have been added. Each loop circuit connects an a-end interface to a
dedicated management interface. The function of these looping
circuits is described below.
In the figure, Routers R1-R3 provide a Layer 3 Virtual Private
Network (VPN) [3] service. Although the three routers can support a
very large number of Virtual Routing and Forwarding (VRF) instances,
for the purpose of example, we will say that they support only two.
The first VRF supports access to the global Internet. This VRF
includes interfaces to User1, User2, User3 and User4. It also
contains several gateway interfaces to the global Internet (which are
Bonica & Ahmed Expires August 7, 2006 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Network Management Access February 2006
not included in the figure).
The second VRF is dedicated to network management traffic. This VRF
includes the interfaces to NMS1 and NMS2, as well as the a-end of
each looping interface.
Each router maintains a dedicated management interface that functions
exactly as described in Section 4. Management functions are
accessible only through the dedicated management interface. They are
not accessible any other interfaces.
The dedicated management interface is connected to the a-end of the
looping circuit. Therefore, it is accessible only through the
management VRF.
Note that the this section describes only one method of constructing
a virtual out-of-band management network. An operator could
construct a virtual out-of-band management network from in-band
pseudowires or an in-band Virtual Private LAN Service. (Layer 3 VPN
service is not required.) Likewise, the looping interface need not
consume two physical ports. The same results can be achieved with a
single, channelized interface or an internal interface.
5.1.1. Vulnerabilities
RFC 3871 is silent regarding virtual out-of-band network management.
However, because virtual out-of-band management networks rely upon
physically in-band channels, they are susceptible to the following
vulnerabilities:
1. Saturation of an in-band trunk can make the device unmanageable.
2. Management traffic may be intercepted. However this would
typically require a significant compromise in the routing system.
3. Public interfaces used for management may become unavailable due
to attacks, bugs, or similar problems (e.g., buffer overflows
being exploited).
Expanding upon the final point, listed above, the virtual out-of-band
network can be misconfigured, such that the managed device becomes
isolated with regard to the network management stations. Similarly,
the in-band network may become unavailable due to attacks, bugs, or
other problems. When this happens, operators cannot access the
router in order to remedy the configuration error. They become
reliant upon physical access to the managed device.
Bonica & Ahmed Expires August 7, 2006 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Network Management Access February 2006
5.1.2. Required Security Capabilities
In order to provide a secure management mechanism, the virtual out-
of-band management network must effectively separate the management
VPN from all user VPNs. Traffic must never cross from the management
VPN to a user VPN or vice versa.
Routers must not forward traffic between dedicated management
interfaces and non-management interfaces. The router must never
forward a datagram received from a non-management interface through
the dedicated management interface. Likewise, the router must never
forward a datagram received from the dedicated management interface
through a non-management interface.
Operators should refrain from activating dynamic routing protocols on
the dedicated management interface. Alternatively, they should rely
upon direct or static routes. If static routes are configured, they
should be as specific as possible.
Operators may also choose to elevate the priority of management
traffic so that it will be preserved during periods of trunk
congestion.
5.1.3. Analysis
None of the capabilities mentioned in Section 5.1.2 address the final
vulnerability mentioned in Section 5.1.1. Failure of the virtual
out-of-band network will render the network unmanageable. This is an
inherent weakness of virtual management.
5.2. Virtual Out-of-Band Access using CoS
Some significant separation of management traffic may be achieved by
assigning all management traffic to a specific Class of Service (CoS)
which is separate from the CoS's used for other (particularly user)
traffic. Specific link and other resources may then be assigned to
the management CoS. Typically this approach may be combined with
either in-band management or virtual out-of-band management using
VPNs.
5.2.1. Vulnerabilities
Because virtual out-of-band management networks rely upon physically
in-band channels, they are susceptible to the same vulnerabilities
discussed in Section 5.1.1 above.
Bonica & Ahmed Expires August 7, 2006 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Network Management Access February 2006
5.2.2. Required Security Capabilities
In order to provide a secure management mechanism using a separate
class of service to create a virtual out-of-band capability, the
network must effectively separate the management CoS from all user
CoSs. User traffic must never be permitted to use the management
CoS. This requires that ALL PE devices be capable of ensuring that
user traffic entering the network via that PE be mapped to a non-
management CoS.
5.2.3. Analysis
Failure of the in-band network will render the network unmanageable.
This is an inherent weakness of virtual management using CoS.
6. Evaluation
Based on the analysis above, we conclude that out-of-band management
is both more secure and more reliable than either of the other
options. However, it is typically more expensive than either of the
other options.
When out-of-band management does not offer a feasible economic
approach, operators must choose between in-band management with
cryptographic protection or a virtual out-of-band management network.
In either case, the operator must deal with some additional
complexity. So, operators should determine which class of threat
(DoS, eavesdropping) poses the greatest risk to their network and
choose a strategy accordingly.
7. Security Considerations
Security is the subject matter of this entire memo.
8. Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of:
o Ross Callon for his comments and suggestions.
This listing is intended to acknowledge contributions, not to imply
that the individual or organizations approve the content of this
document.
Apologies to those who commented on/contributed to the document and
Bonica & Ahmed Expires August 7, 2006 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Network Management Access February 2006
were not listed.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[2] Jones, G., "Operational Security Requirements for Large Internet
Service Provider (ISP) IP Network Infrastructure", RFC 3871,
September 2004.
[3] Rosen, E., "BGP/MPLS IP VPNs", draft-ietf-l3vpn-rfc2547bis-03
(work in progress), October 2004.
9.2. Informative References
[4] Jones, G., "Framework for Operational Security Capabilities for
IP Network Infrastructure", draft-ietf-opsec-framework-01 (work
in progress), October 2005.
[5] Callon, R. and G. Jones, "Miscellaneous Capabilities for IP
Network Infrastructure", draft-callon-misc-cap-00 (work in
progress), October 2005.
Bonica & Ahmed Expires August 7, 2006 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Network Management Access February 2006
Authors' Addresses
Ronald P. Bonica
Juniper Networks
2251 Corporate Park Drive
Herndon, VA 20171
US
Email: rbonica@juniper.net
Syed F. Ahmed
Booz Allen Hamilton
8283 Greensboro Drive
McLean, VA 22102
US
Email: ahmed_syed@bah.com
Bonica & Ahmed Expires August 7, 2006 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Network Management Access February 2006
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
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
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Bonica & Ahmed Expires August 7, 2006 [Page 13]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/