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

Versions: 00 01

Network Working Group                                        B. Trammell
Internet-Draft                                                ETH Zurich
Intended status: Informational                            March 18, 2018
Expires: September 19, 2018


                   Optional Security Is Not An Option
                draft-trammell-optional-security-not-00

Abstract

   This document explores the common properties of optional security
   protocols and extensions, and notes that due to the base-rate fallacy
   and general issues with coordinated deployment of protocols under
   uncertain incentives, optional security protocols have proven
   difficult to deploy in practice.

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 19, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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.



Trammell               Expires September 19, 2018               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft              optional-security                 March 2018


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Problem statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  Case studies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Routing security: BGPSEC and RPKI . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  DNSSEC  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.3.  HTTP over TLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Discussion and guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

1.  Introduction

   Many of the protocols that make up the Internet architecture were
   designed and first implemented in an envrionment of mutual trust
   among network engineers, operators, and users, on computers that were
   incapable of using cryptographic protocols to provide
   confidentiality, integrity, and authenticity for those protocols, in
   a legal environment where cryptographic technology was largely
   protected by restricted licensing and/or prohibited by law.  The
   result has been a protocol stack where security properties have been
   added to core protocols using those protocol's extension mechanisms.

   As extension mechanisms are by design optional features of a
   protocol, this has led to a situation where security is optional up
   and down the protocol stack.  Protocols with optional security have
   proven to be difficult to deploy.  This document describes and
   examines this problem, and provides guidance for future evolution of
   the protocol, based on current work in network measurement and usable
   security research.

2.  Problem statement

   Consider an optional security extension with the following
   properties:

   1.  The extension is optional: a given connection or operation will
       succeed without the extension, albeit without the security
       properties the extension guarantees.

   2.  The extension has a true positive probability P: the probability
       that it will cause any given operation to fail, thereby
       successfully preventing an attack that would have otherwise
       succeeded had the extension not been enabled.  This probability
       is a function of the extension's effectiveness as well as the




Trammell               Expires September 19, 2018               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft              optional-security                 March 2018


       probability that said operation will be an instance of the attack
       the extension prevents.

   3.  The extension has a false positive probability Q: the probability
       it will cause any given operation to fail due to some condition
       other than an attack, e.g. due to a misconfiguration.

   Moving from no deployment of an optional security extension to full
   deployment is a protocol transition as described in [RFC8170].  We
   posit that the implicit transition plans for these protocols have
   generally suffered from an underestimation of a disincentive (section
   5.2) linked to the relationship between P and Q for any given
   protocol.

   Specifically, if Q is much greater than P, then any user of an
   optional security extension will face an overwhelming incentive to
   disable that extension, as the cost of dealing with spuriously
   failing operations becomes greater than the cost of dealing with
   relatively rare successful attacks.  This incentive becomes stronger
   when the cause of the false positive is someone else's problem; i.e.
   not a misconfiguration the user can possibly fix.  This situation can
   arise when poor design, documentation, or tool support elevates the
   incidence of misconfiguration (high Q), in an environment where the
   attack models addressed by the extension are naturally rare (low P).

   This is not a novel observation; a similar phenomenon following from
   the base-rate fallacy has been studied in the literature on
   operational security, where the false positive and true positive
   rates for intrusion detection systems have a similar effect on the
   applicability of these systems.  Axelsson showed [Axelsson99] that
   the false positive rate must be held extremely low, on the order of 1
   in 100,000, for the probability of an intrusion given an alarm to be
   worth the effort of further investigation.

   Indeed, the situation is even worse than this.  Experience with
   operational security monitoring indicates that when Q is high enough,
   even true positives P may be treated as "in the way".

3.  Case studies

   Here we examine four optional security extensions, BGPSEC [RFC8205],
   RPKI [RFC6810], DNSSEC [RFC4033], and the addition of TLS to HTTP/1.1
   [RFC2818], to see how the relationship of P and Q has affected their
   deployment.







Trammell               Expires September 19, 2018               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft              optional-security                 March 2018


3.1.  Routing security: BGPSEC and RPKI

   The Border Gateway Protocol [RFC4271] (BGP) is used to propagate
   interdomain routing information in the Internet.  Its original design
   has no integrity protection at all, either on a hop-by-hop or on an
   end-to-end basis.  In the meantime, the TCP Authentication Option
   [RFC5925] (and MD5 authentication [RFC2385], which it replaces) have
   been deployed to add hop-by-hop integrity protection.

   End-to-end protection of the integrity of BGP announcements is
   protected by two complementary approaches.  Route announcements in
   BGP updates protected by BGPSEC [RFC8205] have the property that the
   every Autonomous System (AS) on the path of ASes listed in the UPDATE
   message has explicitly authorized the advertisement of the route to
   the subsequent AS in the path.  RPKI [RFC6810] protects prefixes,
   granting the right to advertise a prefix (i.e., be the first AS in
   the AS path) to a specific AS.  RPKI serves as a trust root for
   BGPSEC, as well.

   These approaches are not yet universally deployed.  BGP route origin
   authentication approaches provide little benefit to individual
   deployers until it is almost universally deployed [Lychev13].  RPKI
   route origin validation is similarly deployed in about 15% of the
   Internet core; two thirds of these networks only assign lower
   preference to non-validating announcements.  This indicates
   significant caution with respect to RPKI mistakes [Gilad17].  In both
   cases the lack of incentives for each independent deployment,
   including the false positive risk, greatly reduces the speed of
   incremental deployment and the chance of a successful transition
   [RFC8170].

3.2.  DNSSEC

   The Domain Name System (DNS) [RFC1035] provides a distributed
   protocol for the mapping of Internet domain names to information
   about those names.  As originally specified, an answer to a DNS query
   was considered authoritative if it came from an authoritative server,
   which does not allow for authentication of information in the DNS.
   DNS Security [RFC4033] remedies this through an extension, allowing
   DNS resource records to be signed using keys linked to zones, also
   distributed via DNS.  A name can be authenticated if every level of
   the DNS hierarchy from the root up to the zone containing the name is
   signed.

   The root zone of the DNS has been signed since 2010.  As of 2016, 89%
   of TLD zones were also signed.  However, the deployment status of
   DNSSEC for second-level domains (SLDs) varies wildly from region to
   region and is generally poor: only about 1% of .com, .net. and .org



Trammell               Expires September 19, 2018               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft              optional-security                 March 2018


   SLDs are properly signed [DNSSEC-DEPLOYMENT].  Chung et al found
   recently that second-level domain adoption was linked incentives for
   deployment: TLDs which provided direct financial incentives to SLDs
   for having correctly signed DNS zones tend to have much higher
   deployment [Chung17].

   However, the base-rate effect tends to reduce the use of DNSSEC
   validating resolvers, which remains below 15% of Internet clients
   [DNSSEC-DEPLOYMENT].

3.3.  HTTP over TLS

   Security was added to the Web via HTTPS, running HTTP over TLS over
   TCP, in the 1990s [RFC2818].  Deployment of HTTPS crossed 50% of web
   traffic in 2017, due to accelerated deployment in the wake of the
   Snowden revelations in 2013, and increased confidentiality of Web
   content delivery was considered useful to address the attacker model
   laid out in [RFC7624].

   Base-rate effects didn't hinder the deployment of HTTPS per se;
   however, until recently, warnings about less-safe HTTPS
   configurations (e.g. self-signed certificates) were less forceful due
   to the prevalence of these configurations.  The reduction of
   misconfigurations and the cost of obtaining certificates with basic
   authentication checks through automation [I-D.ietf-acme-acme] has
   been a major force in improving Web security.

   The ubiquitous deployment of HTTPS is a rare, eventual success story
   in the deployment of an optional security mechanism.  We note that
   each endpoint deciding to use HTTPS saw an immediate benefit, which
   indicates good chances of success for incremental deployment.
   However, the acceleration of deployment since 2013 is the result of
   the coordinated effort of actors throughout the Web application and
   operations stack, unified around a particular event (the Snowden
   relevations) which provided a "call to arms".

4.  Discussion and guidelines

   It has been necessary for all new protocol work in the IETF to
   consider security since 2003 [RFC3552], and the Internet Architecture
   Board recommended that all new protocol work provide confidentiality
   by default in 2014 [IAB-CONFIDENTIALITY]; new protocols should
   therefore already not rely on optional extensions to provide security
   guarantees for their own operations or for their users.

   In many cases in the running Internet, the ship has sailed: it is not
   at this point realistic to replace protocols relying on optional
   features for security with new, secure protocols: while these full



Trammell               Expires September 19, 2018               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft              optional-security                 March 2018


   replacements are less susceptible to base-rate effects, they have the
   same misaligned incentives to deploy.  In these cases, we note that
   there are, however, some small reasons for hope:

   o  When natural incentives are not enough to overcome base-rate
      effects, external incentives (such as financial incentives) have
      been shown to be effective to motivate single deployment
      decisions.

   o  Efforts to automate configuration of security protocols, and
      thereby reduce the incidence of misconfiguration Q, also has a
      positive impact on deployability.

5.  Acknowledgments

   Many thanks to Peter Hessler, Geoff Huston, and Roland van Rijswijk-
   Deij for conversations leading to the problem statement presented in
   this document.  The title shamelessly riffs off that of Berkeley tech
   report about IP options written by Rodrigo Fonseca et al., via a
   paper at IMC 2017 by Brian Goodchild et al.

   This work is partially supported by the European Commission under
   Horizon 2020 grant agreement no. 688421 Measurement and Architecture
   for a Middleboxed Internet (MAMI), and by the Swiss State Secretariat
   for Education, Research, and Innovation under contract no. 15.0268.
   This support does not imply endorsement.

6.  Informative References

   [Axelsson99]
              Axelsson, S., "The Base-Rate Fallacy and its Implications
              for the Difficulty of Intrusion Detection (in ACM CCS
              1999)", 1999, <http://www.raid-
              symposium.org/raid99/PAPERS/Axelsson.pdf>.

   [Chung17]  Chung, T., van Rijswijk-Deij, R., Choffnes, D., Levin, D.,
              Maggs, B., Mislove, A., and C. Wilson, "Understanding the
              Role of Registrars in DNSSEC Deployment", November 2017,
              <https://conferences.sigcomm.org/imc/2017/papers/
              imc17-final53.pdf>.

   [DNSSEC-DEPLOYMENT]
              Internet Society, ., "State of DNSSEC Deployment 2016",
              December 2016,
              <https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/2016/
              state-of-dnssec-deployment-2016/>.





Trammell               Expires September 19, 2018               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft              optional-security                 March 2018


   [Gilad17]  Gilad, Y., Cohen, A., Herzberg, A., Schapira, M., and H.
              Schulman, "Are We There Yet? On RPKI's Deployment and
              Security (in NDSS 2017)", November 2017,
              <https://www.ndss-symposium.org/ndss2017/ndss-2017-
              programme/
              are-we-there-yet-rpkis-deployment-and-security/>.

   [I-D.ietf-acme-acme]
              Barnes, R., Hoffman-Andrews, J., McCarney, D., and J.
              Kasten, "Automatic Certificate Management Environment
              (ACME)", draft-ietf-acme-acme-10 (work in progress), March
              2018.

   [IAB-CONFIDENTIALITY]
              Internet Architecture Board, ., "IAB Statement on Internet
              Confidentiality", November 2014,
              <https://www.iab.org/2014/11/14/
              iab-statement-on-internet-confidentiality/>.

   [Lychev13]
              Lychev, R., Goldberg, S., and M. Schapira, "BGP Security
              in Partial Deployment - Is the Squeeze Worth the Juice?
              (in SIGCOMM 2013)", 2013,
              <https://conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/2013/papers/
              sigcomm/p171.pdf>.

   [RFC1035]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
              specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
              November 1987, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>.

   [RFC2385]  Heffernan, A., "Protection of BGP Sessions via the TCP MD5
              Signature Option", RFC 2385, DOI 10.17487/RFC2385, August
              1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2385>.

   [RFC2818]  Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2818, May 2000,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2818>.

   [RFC3552]  Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
              Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3552, July 2003,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3552>.

   [RFC4033]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
              Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements",
              RFC 4033, DOI 10.17487/RFC4033, March 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4033>.




Trammell               Expires September 19, 2018               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft              optional-security                 March 2018


   [RFC4271]  Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
              Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.

   [RFC5925]  Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP
              Authentication Option", RFC 5925, DOI 10.17487/RFC5925,
              June 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5925>.

   [RFC6810]  Bush, R. and R. Austein, "The Resource Public Key
              Infrastructure (RPKI) to Router Protocol", RFC 6810,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6810, January 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6810>.

   [RFC7624]  Barnes, R., Schneier, B., Jennings, C., Hardie, T.,
              Trammell, B., Huitema, C., and D. Borkmann,
              "Confidentiality in the Face of Pervasive Surveillance: A
              Threat Model and Problem Statement", RFC 7624,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7624, August 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7624>.

   [RFC8170]  Thaler, D., Ed., "Planning for Protocol Adoption and
              Subsequent Transitions", RFC 8170, DOI 10.17487/RFC8170,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8170>.

   [RFC8205]  Lepinski, M., Ed. and K. Sriram, Ed., "BGPsec Protocol
              Specification", RFC 8205, DOI 10.17487/RFC8205, September
              2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8205>.

Author's Address

   Brian Trammell
   ETH Zurich
   Universitatstrasse 6
   8092 Zurich
   Switzerland

   Email: ietf@trammell.ch













Trammell               Expires September 19, 2018               [Page 8]


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