Communication - Princeton University

download report

Transcript Communication - Princeton University

Securing the Internet Routing
System, One Network at a Time
Jennifer Rexford
Princeton University
1
The Internet
Internet
2
The Internet is a Network of Networks
• Around 40,000 separately administered networks
• Competitive cooperation of Autonomous Systems
4
3
5
2
7
6
1
3
Local Control vs. Global Properties
Local Control
Intradomain routing,
interdomain policies
Global Properties
Performance, security,
reliability, scalability
4
The Glue That Holds
the Internet Together
5
Interdomain Routing
• Work together to reach remote destinations
• No global knowledge, and no common goal
• ASes share information, and make local decisions
4
3
5
1
2
6
Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)
• Announce paths
–AS announces a path to a destination address
–Each AS adds itself to the front of the path
• Apply local policy
–Decide which path to select
–Decide which neighbors to tell
“d: path (2,1)”
3
“d: path (1)”
1
2
data traffic
data traffic
d
7
Flexible Policies
• Each node can apply local policies
–Path selection: Which path to use?
–Path export: Which paths to advertise?
• Examples
–Node 2 may prefer the path “2, 3, 1” over “2, 1”
–Node 1 may not let node 3 hear the path “1, 2”
2
3
1
2
3
1
8
Business Relationships Between ASes
• Neighboring ASes have business contracts
–How much traffic to carry
–Which destinations to reach
–How much money to pay
• Common business relationships
–Customer-provider
–Peer-peer
–Backup
–Sibling
9
Customer-Provider Relationship
• Customer needs to be reachable from everyone
– Provider ensures all neighbors can reach the customer
• Customer does not want to provide transit service
– Customer does not let its providers send traffic through it
Traffic to the customer
Traffic from the customer
d
provider
provider
traffic
customer
d
customer
10
Peer-Peer Relationship
• Peers exchange traffic between customers
– AS let’s its peer reach (only) its customers
– AS can reach its peer’s customers
– Often the relationship is settlement-free (i.e., no $$$)
Traffic to/from the peer and its customers
peer
d
traffic
peer
11
AS Structure: Tier-1 Providers
• Top of the Internet hierarchy
–Has no upstream provider of its own
–Typically has a large (inter)national backbone
–Around 10 ASes: AT&T, Sprint, Level 3, …
peer-peer
peer-peer
peer-peer
peer-peer
12
AS Structure: Other ASes
• Lower-layer providers (tier-2, …)
–Provide transit service to downstream customers
 But need at least one provider of their own
–Typically have national or regional scope
 E.g., Minnesota Regional Network
–Includes a few thousand ASes
• Stub ASes
–Do not provide transit service
–Connect to upstream provider(s)
–Most ASes (e.g., 85-90%)
13
Interdomain Security
Vulnerabilities
14
“Hijacking” an Address Block
4
3
5
2
7
1
d
AS 1 can drop the traffic, impersonate the destination, send spam, …
6
d
15
“Hijacking” Part of an Address Block
4
3
5
2
1
7
d’
All ASes direct traffic to the “more specific” destination…
6
d
16
Smart Attacks: Forging the AS Path
• Try to look legitimate
– E.g., attacker forges a link to the real destination AS
4
3
5
2
1
(6 d)
7
6
d
17
Smart Attacks: Path-Shortening Attacks
• Remove ASes from the AS path
– E.g., turn “701 3715 88” into “701 88”
• Motivations
– Make the AS path look shorter than it is
– Attract sources that normally try to avoid AS 3715
– Help AS 88 look like it is closer to the Internet’s core
• Who can tell that this AS path is a lie?
– Maybe AS 88 *does* connect to AS 701 directly
701
3715
88
?
18
Interception (Man in the Middle) Attacks
4
3
5
2
1
7
6
d
d
AS 1 can intercept the traffic en route to the real destination
19
Two High-Profile Examples
Pakistan Telecom hijack of YouTube
China Telecom interception of 15% of Internet
20
February 24, 2008, YouTube Outage
• YouTube (AS 36561)
– Web site www.youtube.com
– IP address block 208.65.152.0/22
• Pakistan Telecom (AS 17557)
– Receives government order to block access to YouTube
– Starts announcing 208.65.153.0/24 to PCCW (AS 3491)
– All traffic directed to YouTube gets dropped
• Mistakes were made
– AS 17557: announcing to everyone, not just customers
– AS 3491: not filtering routes announced by AS 17557
• Lasted 100 minutes for some, 2 hours for others
21
Timeline (UTC Time)
• 18:47:45
– First evidence of hijacked /24 route propagating in Asia
• 18:48:00
– Several big trans-Pacific providers carrying the route
• 18:49:30
– Bogus route fully propagated
• 20:07:25
– YouTube starts advertising the /24 to attract traffic back
• 20:08:30
– Many (but not all) providers are using the valid route
http://www.renesys.com/blog/2008/02/pakistan_hijacks_youtube_1.shtml
22
Timeline (UTC Time)
• 20:18:43
– YouTube starts announcing two more-specific /25 routes
• 20:19:37
– Some more providers start using the /25 routes
• 20:50:59
– AS 17557 starts prepending (“3491 17557 17557”)
• 20:59:39
– AS 3491 disconnects AS 17557
• 21:00:00
– All is well, videos of cats flushing toilets are available
http://www.renesys.com/blog/2008/02/pakistan_hijacks_youtube_1.shtml
23
April 8, 2010, China Telecom Interception
• Around 50,000 address blocks
– Addresses in 170 different countries
– Including 16,000 blocks in U.S. (including government)
• Small part of China Telecom (AS 23724)
– Announced the 50,000 address blocks
– While retaining a legitimate path to the destinations
• Mistakes were made
– AS 23724: announcing address blocks it does not own
– AS 4134: not filtering routes announced by AS 23724
• Intercepted a portion of the traffic
– For a period of about 18 minutes
24
Global Impact of the Interception
http://www.renesys.com/blog/2010/11/chinas-18-minute-mystery.shtml
25
Lessons From the Examples
• BGP is incredibly vulnerable
– Local actions have serious global consequences
– Propagating misinformation is surprisingly easy
• Fixing the problem required vigilance
– Monitoring to detect and diagnose the problem
– Immediate action to (try to) attract the traffic back
– Longer-term cooperation to block/disable the attack
• Preventing these problems is even harder
– Require all ASes to perform defensive filtering?
– Automatically detect and stop bogus route?
– Require proof of ownership of the address block?
26
Securing Interdomain Routing
27
Challenges to Securing BGP
• The protocol was designed based on trust
– Lying is easy, and it works!
• BGP is often misconfigured
– New network operators who make mistakes
– “Fat fingering” easily leads to incorrect messages
• Good security relies on wide participation
– Maintaining an accurate registry of address ownership
– Switching to a secure variant of BGP
• Solutions need to be incrementally deployable
– Backwards compatibility: works with existing protocols?
– Incentives: provides benefits to early adopters?
28
Three Main Approaches
• Defensive filtering
– AS filters update messages from neighbors
– E.g., address ownership, unexpected AS path, etc.
– Not very effective for routes originated far away
• Anomaly detection
– Monitor BGP update messages and detect anomalies
– Report anomalies, or even filter/depreference the routes
– Incrementally deployable and reasonably effective
• Secure extensions to BGP
– Require originating AS to prove it owns the addresses
– Cryptographically signing the BGP update messages
29
Anomaly Detection: Flagging Bogus Routes
• Build a view of “correct” announcements
– Prefix ownership (e.g., AS 88 owns 128.112.0.0/16)
– AS-level edges or sub-paths (e.g., Sprint provides transit
for AT&T to Ebone, so “7018 1239 1755” is valid)
• Ways to construct this view
– Regional Internet Registry data
– Past history of BGP update messages
• Flag BGP announcements in violation
– IAR: http://iar.cs.unm.edu/
– PHAS: http://phas.netsec.colostate.edu/
– http://cyclops.cs.ucla.edu/
• Network operators learn about problems quickly
30
Anomaly Detection: Avoiding Bogus Routes
• Detection after the fact may be too late
– Many attacks are short-lived (e.g., misconfiguration)
– Doesn’t take long to snoop, do identity theft, etc.
• Better to avoid bogus routes in the first place
– Detect anomalous routes in real time
– Prefer “normal” routes over anomalous ones
3
2
5
1
d
prevent hijack
d
4
31
Anomaly Detection: Partial Deployment
• Anomaly detection works in partial deployment
– Even a single AS can avoid bogus routes
– Implementable as a change to BGP decision process
• Especially useful if deployed by large ISPs
– Large ASes learn many routes for each prefix
 More likely to have at least one “normal” route
– Large ASes disseminate routes to others
 Even non-participating ASes benefit significantly
• Participants could be even more aggressive!
– “Hijack the hijacker” by announcing each other’s prefixes
– … and directing traffic to the legitimate destination
32
Secure BGP
• Origin Authentication
– Claim the right to originate a address block
– Signed and distributed out-of-band
– Checked through delegation chain from ICANN
– Public Key Infrastructure approach
• Path Verification
– Validates that the AS path really indicates
– … the order of ASes traversed by the announcement
– Uses digital signatures and public key infrastructure
33
Route Attestations in Secure BGP
If AS a announced path abP then b announced
bP to a
Comcast:
Public
Key
Infrastructure
Local:
(IBM)
(Comcast, IBM)
Princeton: (Local, Comcast, IBM)
IBM
Princeton
AT&T
Local
ISP
Comcast
Comcast: (IBM)
Comcast: (IBM)
Local: (Comcast, IBM)
Public Key Signature: Anyone who knows IBM’s public
key can verify the message was sent by IBM.
34
Secure BGP Deployment Challenge
• Complete, accurate registries
– E.g., of ownership of address blocks
• Public Key Infrastructure
– To know the public key for any given AS
• Efficiency issues
– E.g., route attestations make BGP messages longer
– Need to compute public key operations quickly
• Difficulty of incremental deployment
– Hard to have a “flag day” to deploy S-BGP
– Expensive (and useless) for a single node to upgrade
35
Incentivizing Secure BGP Deployment
• Let the market drive S-BGP deployment
– Help participating ASes make more money
– By attracting more revenue-generating traffic
• Secure ASes “break ties” in favor of secure paths
– Participants are 1, 3, and 4
 So, 1 prefers (1 3 4) over (1 2 4)
1
– So, AS 2 makes less $$$
 And wants to participate!
• Secure ASes not harmed
2
– Still consider business and
performance concerns first!
http://www.cs.bu.edu/fac/goldbe/papers/sbgpTrans.html
3
4
d
36
Market-Driven Deployment
• A few ASes are early adopters of S-BGP
– E.g., a handful of large Internet Service Providers
– Perhaps subsidized by the government
• Participating ASes consider security
– As a tie-breaking step when selecting routes
– Boot-strapping stub customers with “simplex” S-BGP
• Other ASes have an incentive to adopt
– To attract back the traffic lost to their competitors
Take advantage of economic incentives and the
topological structure of the Internet!
37
Stepping Back
• The Internet routing system is very vulnerable
– Built on an assumption of trust
– Local actions have global consequences
• These concerns are not merely hypothetical
– Several major high-profile outages
– Malicious actors can cause major headaches
– Rational actors have economic incentives to cheat
• Most proposed solutions are hard to deploy
– Defensive filtering, anomaly detection, secure protocols
• Incremental deployment is the key
– Clear security and economic benefits to adopters
38
Backup Slides
39
Data-Plane Attacks
40
Saying One Thing, Doing Another
• Interdomain routing security
– An AS cannot announce a route it did not receive
– The list of ASes in the path did send the BGP message
• But, an AS can say one thing and do another
– An AS learns multiple ways to reach a destination
– An AS can announce one path, but use another
41