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

Versions: 00

DOTS                                                             M. Chen
Internet-Draft                                                    Li. Su
Intended status: Experimental                                       CMCC
Expires: September 10, 2019                                March 9, 2019


                  expand attack type in signal channel
              draft-meiling-dots-attack-type-expansion-00

Abstract

   This document describes a DDoS Mitigation Request parameter used in
   the Signal Channel request, as an expansion of the signal channel for
   mitigating DDoS attack accurately with attack types.  The proposed
   parameter will help to achieve fine-grained disposition for the
   attack traffic to be cleaned.

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 https://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 September 10, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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
   (https://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.



Chen & Su              Expires September 10, 2019               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft              dots-attack-type                  March 2019


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Request Mitigation expansion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Standard of Attack Type Definition  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

1.  Introduction

   Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) is a type of resource-consuming
   attack, which exploits a large number of attack resources and uses
   standard protocols to attack target objects.  DDoS attacks consume a
   large amount of target object network resources or server resources
   (including computing power, storage capacity, etc.) of the target
   object, so that the target object cannot provide network services
   normally.  At present, DDoS attack is one of the most powerful and
   indefensible attacks on the Internet, and due to the extensive use of
   mobile devices and IoT devices in recent years, it is easier for DDoS
   attackers to attack with real attack sources (broilers).

   Why again raise the parameter of attack type to add to mitigation
   request for discussion; Although the scope of DOTS work now is the
   interaction between DOTS client and DOTS server, the mitigator and
   attack target roles must be considered in the implementation when use
   DOTS mechanism.  It has been discussed before whether it is
   appropriate to carry the type of attack in the mitigation request
   parameters.  Some views hold that the type of attack reported is not
   credible.The premise of this view is that both attack detection and
   attack disposal belong to the mitigator role.  But there is another
   scenario in which attack detection and attack disposal are separated,
   and one possible scenario in which the attack detection is at the
   attack target and the attack disposal is at the mitigator, then
   attack informations such as the attack type is trusted.We can also
   consider a scenario, if an entity is not only the attack target, but
   also a mitigator, when ddos attack occurs, it requires other
   mitigators upper link to mitigate the attack flow, so it will use
   dots client send mitigation reqest to other top link mitigator
   together, in this case all the mitigators can share informations of
   the attack, and the informations are fully trusted, in this way,
   other mitigator does not need to waste of resources for detecting
   again.



Chen & Su              Expires September 10, 2019               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft              dots-attack-type                  March 2019


   Why do we need uniform attack types.  At present, telecom operators,
   cloud service providers and third-party manufacturers have their own
   anti-ddos solutions.The construction of DDoS attack mitigation and
   disposal system involves two devices, namely detection equipment and
   cleaning equipment.  In the actual network deployment, the core nodes
   of the network will deploy detection equipment and cleaning equipment
   at the same time to detect and dispose attacks.  After an alarm is
   given, the cleaning equipment will be triggered to carry out traffic
   drainage and cleaning operations.  At present, the detection
   equipment adopts the coarse-grained attack type determination method,
   which greatly reduces the false alarm rate of attack.Different
   disposal of cleaning equipment is different for different attack
   types.  For example, UDP attack types can be discarded directly after
   matching, but HTTP CC Flood can be further determined only after
   interactive operation is required at the disposal.  Interactive
   operation may be redirection or verification code sending.  In the
   actual environment, there are many manufacturers of detection
   equipment and cleaning equipment, and each manufacturer has its own
   definition method of attack type, so it is easy to lead to the same
   attack, but the field of attack type detected by different equipment
   manufacturers is not the same, which may easily lead to disposal
   confusion.

   Volume based distributed denial-of-service attack have many types
   based on different protocol layer, for the service providers to
   immediately protect their network services from DDoS attacks, DDoS
   mitigation needs to be automated.  DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS)
   is a protocol to standardize real-time signaling, threat-handling
   requests[I-D.ietf-dots-signal-channel], when attack target is under
   attack, dots client send mitigation request to dots server for help,
   If the mitigation request contains enough messages of the attack,
   then the mitigator can respond very effectively.  This document
   describe attack type in the mitigation request.

2.  Terminology

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

   The readers should be familiar with the terms defined in
   [I-D.ietf-dots-requirements] [I-D.ietf-dots-use-cases]

   The terminology related to YANG data modules is defined in [RFC7950]

   In addition, this document uses the terms defined below:




Chen & Su              Expires September 10, 2019               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft              dots-attack-type                  March 2019


   Attack Type:  used to distinguish between different methods of ddos
      attack.

   Attack type definition:  General definition method, Covers most
      current attack types.

3.  Request Mitigation expansion

   The purpose of this expansion is to propose the attack traffic more
   accurately.  When we deal with DDoS attacks, we find it more
   reasonable and effective to deal with them according to the types of
   attacks, It is easier to handle if the type of attack is already
   included in the mitigation request.  AS the mitigator doesn't have to
   detect the attack type again, the mitigator can directly do the
   drainage of attack flow.  Therefore, with attack type the disposal
   process is more efficient.

   From the point of view of cleaning, different types of attacks are
   handled differently, for example, Memcached reflection flood use UDP
   11211 port for DDoS flood, but tcp syn flood use defects of TCP
   three-way handshake to consuming connection resources.  This two
   attacks are cleaned in different ways.  Therefore, it is necessary to
   add attack type parameters in the mitigation request.

   When a DOTS client requires mitigation for some reason, the DOTS
   client uses the CoAP PUT method to send a mitigation request to its
   DOTS server(s).  If a DOTS client is entitled to solicit the DOTS
   service, the DOTS server enables mitigation on behalf of the DOTS
   client by communicating the DOTS client's request to a mitigator
   (which may be colocated with the DOTS server) and relaying the
   feedback of the thus-selected mitigator to the requesting DOTS
   client.

   DOTS clients use the PUT method to request mitigation from a DOTS
   server.  During active mitigation, DOTS clients may use PUT requests
   to carry mitigation efficacy updates to the DOTS server.

   The two new parameters in the CBOR body (Figure 1) are described
   below:












Chen & Su              Expires September 10, 2019               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft              dots-attack-type                  March 2019


    Content-Format: "application/dots+cbor"
                     {
                     "ietf-dots-signal-channel:mitigation-scope": {
                       "scope": [
                         {
                           "target-prefix": [
                              "string"
                            ],
                           "target-port-range": [
                              {
                                "lower-port": number,
                                "upper-port": number
                              }
                            ],
                            "target-protocol": [
                              number
                            ],
                            "target-fqdn": [
                              "string"
                            ],
                            "target-Attack-Type": [
                               {
                                 "Attack-Name": ["string"],
                                 "Attack-Alias": ["string"]
                               }
                             ],
                             "target-uri": [
                              "string"
                            ],
                            "alias-name": [
                              "string"
                            ],
                           "lifetime": number,
                           "trigger-mitigation": true|false
                         }
                       ]
                     }
     }

             Figure 1: PUT to Convey DOTS Mitigation Requests

   target-attack-type:  A list of attack types involved in an attack.

      There is no uniform definition of attack types, It is often the
      case that the same type of attack has different names, An attack
      type is defined in section 4.





Chen & Su              Expires September 10, 2019               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft              dots-attack-type                  March 2019


      The parameter of Target-attack-type contains two value, one is
      Attack-Name, the other is Attack-Alias, Attack-Alias will solve
      the abbreviation problem.An attack could be a hybrid attack, then
      the target-attack-type represents major types of attacks

      This is an optional attribute.

   The definition of the rest parameters are the same as the
   [I-D.ietf-dots-signal-channel]

4.  Standard of Attack Type Definition

   For the target-attack-type field, we define it as a string Type, and
   define the two fields according to the attack method and extension
   name. there may be problems in the actual network environment, that
   attack target and mitigator (such as cleaning equipment) belong to
   different models of different vendors, because different vendors have
   different definitions of Attack in understanding and implementation.
   When an attack occurs, some devices may not be considered as an
   attack.  It is also possible that the detection device considere it
   as A type attack, while the cleaning device consider it as B type
   attack.  When performing the cleaning schedule, it will cause the
   problem of incorrect cleaning or over-cleaning.  Both of these errors
   will cause the normal business to fail to link.  Therefore, it is
   necessary to unify the attack definition, form a standard attack
   definition, and solve the problem of cleaning errors from the source.
   we give out a complete format for DDoS attacks as below:

   [protocol level] [protocol name] [message name/operation name/port]
   [attack methods feature description field 1] [attack methods feature
   description field 2] [attack methods describe the standard field]

   interval between each field operators use special symbol or any other
   symbol agreed.For example:HTTP Get Flood(CC) definition,we defined
   the target-Attack-Type field as:

     {
       "Attack-Name":" Application _Layer, HTTP, Get,,, Flood"
       "Attack-Alias":"HTTP CC Flood"

     }

                 Figure 2: Attack type definition example

   Based on the extension, the DOTS Server can accurately inform
   Mitigator of the objects and attack types that need to be disposed
   when the mitigation instructions are delivered to the Mitigation, so
   that the Mitigator can be accurately disposed.



Chen & Su              Expires September 10, 2019               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft              dots-attack-type                  March 2019


5.  Security Considerations

   TBD

6.  IANA Considerations

   TBD

7.  Acknowledgement

   TBD

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC7950]  Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
              RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>.

8.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-dots-requirements]
              Mortensen, A., K, R., and R. Moskowitz, "Distributed
              Denial of Service (DDoS) Open Threat Signaling
              Requirements", draft-ietf-dots-requirements-20 (work in
              progress), February 2019.

   [I-D.ietf-dots-signal-channel]
              K, R., Boucadair, M., Patil, P., Mortensen, A., and N.
              Teague, "Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat
              Signaling (DOTS) Signal Channel Specification", draft-
              ietf-dots-signal-channel-30 (work in progress), March
              2019.

   [I-D.ietf-dots-use-cases]
              Dobbins, R., Migault, D., Fouant, S., Moskowitz, R.,
              Teague, N., Xia, L., and K. Nishizuka, "Use cases for DDoS
              Open Threat Signaling", draft-ietf-dots-use-cases-17 (work
              in progress), January 2019.






Chen & Su              Expires September 10, 2019               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft              dots-attack-type                  March 2019


Authors' Addresses

   Meiling Chen
   CMCC
   32, Xuanwumen West
   BeiJing , BeiJing   100053
   China

   Email: chenmeiling@chinamobile.com


   Li Su
   CMCC
   32, Xuanwumen West
   BeiJing   100053
   China

   Email: suli@chinamobile.com

































Chen & Su              Expires September 10, 2019               [Page 8]


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