| NVO3 | D. Migault |
| Internet-Draft | Ericsson |
| Intended status: Informational | S. Boutros |
| Expires: May 8, 2019 | D. Wings |
| VMware, Inc. | |
| S. Krishnan | |
| Kaloom | |
| November 04, 2018 |
Geneve Security Requirements
draft-mglt-nvo3-geneve-security-requirements-05
The document defines the security requirements to protect tenants overlay traffic against security threats from the NVO3 network components that are interconnected with tunnels implemented using Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation (Geneve).
The document provides two sets of security requirements: 1. requirements to evaluate the data plane security of a given deployment of Geneve overlay. Such requirements are intended to Geneve overlay provider to evaluate a given deployment.
2. requirement a security mechanism need to fulfill to secure any deployment of Geneve overlay deployment
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 May 8, 2019.
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.
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 BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
The network virtualization overlay over Layer 3 (NVO3) as depicted in Figure 1, allows an overlay cloud provider to provide a logical L2/L3 interconnect for the Tenant Systems TSes that belong to a specific tenant network. A packet received from a TS is encapsulated by the ingress Network Virtualization Edge (NVE). The encapsulated packet is then sent to the remote NVE through a tunnel. When reaching the egress NVE of the tunnel, the packet is decapsulated and forwarded to the target TS. The L2/L3 address mappings to the remote NVE(s) are distributed to the NVEs by a logically centralized Network Virtualization Authority (NVA) or using a distributed control plane such as Ethernet-VPN. In a datacenter, the NVO3 tunnels can be implemented using Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation (Geneve) [I-D.ietf-nvo3-geneve]. Such Geneve tunnels establish NVE-to-NVE communications, may transit within the data center via Transit device. The Geneve tunnels overlay network enable multiple Virtual Networks to coexist over a shared underlay infrastructure, and a Virtual Network may span a single data center or multiple data centers.
The underlay infrastructure on which the multi-tenancy overlay networks are hosted, can be owned and provided by an underlay provider who may be different from the overlay cloud provider.
+--------+ +--------+
| Tenant +--+ +----| Tenant |
| System | | (') | System |
+--------+ | ................. ( ) +--------+
| +---+ +---+ (_)
+--|NVE|---+ +---|NVE|-----+
+---+ | | +---+
/ . +-----+ .
/ . +--| NVA | .
/ . | +-----+ .
| . | .
| . | L3 Overlay +--+--++--------+
+--------+ | . | Network | NVE || Tenant |
| Tenant +--+ . | | || System |
| System | . \ +---+ +--+--++--------+
+--------+ .....|NVE|.........
+---+
|
|
=====================
| |
+--------+ +--------+
| Tenant | | Tenant |
| System | | System |
+--------+ +--------+
Figure 1: Generic Reference Model for Network Virtualization Overlays
[RFC7365]
This document discusses the security risks that a Geneve based NVO3 network may encounter. In addition, this document lists the requirements to protect the Geneve packet components defined in [I-D.ietf-nvo3-geneve] that include the Geneve tunnel IP and UDP header, the Geneve Header, Geneve options, and inner payload.
The document provides two sets of security requirements:
This document assumes the following roles are involved: - Tenant: designates the entity that connects various systems within a single virtualized network. The various system can typically be containers, VMs implementing a single or various functions.
- Geneve Overlay Provider: provides the Geneve overlay that seamlessly connect the various Tenant Systems over a given virtualized network.
- Infrastructure Provider: provides the infrastructure that runs the Geneve overlay network as well as the Tenant System. A given deployment may consider different infrastructure provider with different level of trust. Typically the Geneve overlay network may use a public cloud to extend the resource of a private cloud. Similarly, a edge computing may extend its resources using resource of the core network.
Tenant, Geneve Overlay Provider and Infrastructure Provider can be implemented by a single or various different entities with different level of trust between each other. The simplest deployment may consists in a single entity running its systems in its data center and using Geneve in order to manage its internal resources. A more complex use case may consider that a Tenant subscribe to the Geneve Overlay Provider which manage the virtualized network over various type of infrastructure. The trust between the Tenant, Geneve Overlay Provider and Infrastructure Provider may be limited.
Given the different relations between Tenant, Geneve Overlay Provider and Infrastructure Provider, this document aims providing requirements to ensure: 1. The Geneve Overlay Provider delivers tenant payload traffic (Geneve inner payload) and ensuring privacy and integrity. 2. The Geneve Overlay Provider provides the necessary means to prevent injection or redirection of the Tenant traffic from a rogue node in the Geneve overlay network or a rogue node from the infrastructure. 3. The Geneve Overlay Provider can rely on the Geneve overlay in term of robustness and reliability of the signaling associated to the Geneve packets (Geneve tunnel header, Geneve header and Geneve options) in order to appropriately manage its overlay.
This document uses the terminology of [RFC8014], [RFC7365] and [I-D.ietf-nvo3-geneve].
This section considers attacks performed by NVE, network devices or any other devices using Geneve, that is when the attackers knowing the details of the Geneve packets can perform their attacks by changing fields in the Geneve tunnel header, base header, Geneve options and Geneve inner payload. Attacks related to the control plane are outside the scope of this document. The reader is encouraged to read [I-D.ietf-nvo3-security-requirements] for a similar threat analysis of NVO3 overlay networks.
Threats include traffic analysis, sniffing, injection, redirection, and replay. Based on these threats, this document enumerates the security requirements.
Threats are divided into two categories: passive attack and active attack.
Threats are always associated with risks and the evaluation of these risks depend among other things on the environment.
Passive attacks include traffic analysis (noticing which workloads are communicating with which other workloads, how much traffic, and when those communications occur) and sniffing (examining traffic for useful information such as personally-identifyable information or protocol information (e.g., TLS certificate, overlay routing protocols).
Passive attacks may also consist in inferring information about a virtualized network or some Tenant System from observing the Geneve traffic. This could also involve the correlation between observed traffic and additional information. For example, a passive network observer can determine two virtual machines are communicating by manipulating activity or network activity of other virtual machines on that same host. For example, the attacker could control (or be otherwise aware of) network activity of the other VMs running on the same host, and deduce other network activity is due to a victim VM.
A rogue element of the overlay Geneve network under the control of an attacker may leak and redirect the traffic from a virtual network to the attacker for passive monitoring [RFC7258].
Avoiding leaking information is hard to enforced. The security requirements provided in section {{sniffing} expect to mitigate such attacks by lowering the consequences, typically making leaked data unusable to an attacker.
Active attacks involve modifying Geneve packets, injecting Geneve packets, or interfering with Geneve packet delivery (such as by corrupting packet checksum). Active attack may target the Tenant System or the Geneve overlay.
There are multiple motivations to inject illegitimate traffic into a tenants network. When the rogue element is on the path of the TS traffic, it may be able to inject and receive the corresponding messages back. On the other hand, if the attacker is not on the path of the TS traffic it may be limited to only inject traffic to a TS without receiving any response back. When rogue element have access to the traffic in both directions, the possibilities are only limited by the capabilities of the other on path elements - Transit device, NVE or TS - to detect and protect against the illegitimate traffic. On the other hand, when the rogue element is not on path, the surface for such attacks remains still quite large. For example, an attacker may target a specific TS or application by crafting a specific packet that can either generate load on the system or crash the system or application. TCP syn flood typically overload the TS while not requiring the ability to receive responses. Note that udp application are privileged target as they do not require the establishment of a session and are expected to treat any incoming packets.
Traffic injection may also be used to flood the virtual network to disrupt the communications between the TS or to introduce additional cost for the tenant, for example when pricing considers the traffic inside the virtual network. The two latest attacks may also take advantage of applications with a large factor of amplification for their responses as well as applications that upon receiving a packet interact with multiple TS. Similarly, applications running on top of UDP are privileged targets.
Note also that an attacker that is not able to receive the response traffic, may use other channels to evaluate or measure the impact of the attack. Typically, in the case of a service, the attacker may have access, for example, to a user interface that provides indication on the level of disruption and the success of an attack, Such feed backs may also be used by the attacker to discover or scan the network.
Preventing traffic to cross virtual networks, reduce the surface of attack, but rogue element main still perform attacks within a given virtual network by replaying a legitimate packet. Some variant of such attack also includes modification of unprotected parts when available in order for example to increase the payload size.
The document assumes that Security protocols, algorithms, and implementations provide the security properties for which they are designed, an attack caused by a weakness in a cryptographic algorithm is out of scope.
Protecting network connecting TSes and NVEs which could be accessible to outside attackers is out of scope.
An attacker controlling an underlying network device may break the communication of the overlays by discarding or delaying the delivery of the packets passing through it. The security consideration to prevent this type of attack is out of scope of this document.
Securing communication between NVAs and NVEs is out of scope.
Selectively providing integrity / authentication, confidentiality / encryption of only portions of the Geneve packet is in scope. This will be the case if the Tenant Systems uses security protocol to protect its communications.
The inner payload, unless protection is provided by the Tenant System reveals the content of the communication. This may mitigate by the Tenant using application level security such as, for example JSON Web Encryption [RFC7516] or transport layer security such as DTLS [RFC6347] or TLS [RFC8446] or IPsec/ESP [RFC4303]. However none of these security protocols are sufficient to protect the entire inner payload. IPsec/ESP still leave in clear the optional L2 layer information as well as the IP addresses and some IP options. In addition to these pieces of information, the use of TLS or DTLS reveals the transport layer protocol as well as ports.
A secure deployment of a Geneve overlay must fulfill the requirement below:
A Geneve security mechanism must fulfill the requirements below:
The Geneve Header and Geneve Options contains metadata information related to the communications. Note that a Geneve packet may have a combination of Geneve options that needs to be read by transit device, in which case this option needs to be read by the transit device while other options MAY only be accessed by the tunnel endpoint. Information revealed as well as correlation with traffic volumetry may reveal pattern traffic within a given virtualized network as well as any information revealed by the current and future Geneve Option.
A secure deployment of a Geneve overlay must fulfill the requirement below:
A Geneve security mechanism must fulfill the requirements below:
Traffic injection from a rogue non legitimate NVO3 Geneve overlay device or a rogue underlay transit device can target an NVE, a transit underlay device or a Tenant System. Targeting a Tenant's System requires a valid MAC and IP addresses of the Tenant's System.
Tenant's System may protect their communications using IPsec or TLS. Such protection protects the Tenants from receiving spoofed packets, as any injected packet is expected to be discarded by the destination Tenant's System. Such protection does not protect the tenant system from receiving illegitimate packets that may disrupt the Tenant's System performance. The Geneve overlay network MAY still need to prevent such spoofed Tenant's system packets from being steered to the Tenant's system. When the Tenant's Systems are not protecting their communications, the Geneve overlay network SHOULD be able to to prevent a rogue device from injecting traffic into the overlay network.
In order to prevent traffic injection to one virtual network, the destination legitimate Geneve NVE MUST be able to authenticate the incoming Geneve packets from the source NVE. The Geneve architecture considers transit devices that MAY process some Geneve Option without affecting the Geneve packet. These transit device MAY Authenticate the Geneve packet as part of the Geneve packet processing but MAY also process other Geneve options. As a result, integrity protection and authentication SHOULD be performed by transit device, prior to any processing.
A secure deployment of a Geneve overlay must fulfill the requirement below:
A Geneve security mechanism must fulfill the requirements below:
A rogue device of the NVO3 overlay Geneve network or the underlay network may redirect the traffic from a virtual network to the attacker for passive or active attacks. If the rogue device is in charge of the securing the Geneve packet, then Geneve security mechanisms are not intended to address this threat. More specifically, a rogue source NVE will still be able to redirect the traffic in clear text before protecting ( and encrypting the packet). A rogue destination NVE will still be able to redirect the traffic in clear text after decrypting the Geneve packets. The same occurs with a rogue transit that is in charge of encrypting and decrypting a Geneve Option, Geneve Option or any information. The security mechanisms are intended to protect a Geneve information from any on path node. Note that modern cryptography recommend the use of authenticated encryption. This section assumes such algorithms are used, and as such encrypted packets are also authenticated.
To prevent an attacker located in the middle between the NVEs and modifying the tunnel address information in the data packet header to redirect the data traffic, the solution need to provide confidentiality protection for data traffics exchanged between NVEs.
Requirements are similar as those provided in section Section 5.1 to mitigate sniffing attacks and those provided in section Section 5.2 to mitigate traffic injection attacks.
A rogue device of the NVO3 overlay Geneve network or the underlay network may replay a Geneve packet, to load the network and/or a specific Tenant System with a modified Geneve payload. In some cases, such attacks may target an increase of the tenants costs.
When traffic between tenants is not protected, the rogue device may forward the modified packet over a valid (authenticated) Geneve Header. The crafted packet may for example, include a specifically crafted application payload for a specific Tenant Systems application, with the intention to load the tenant specific application.
Updating the Geneve header and option parameters such as setting an OAM bit, adding bogus option TLVs, or setting a critical bit, may result in different processing behavior, that could greatly impact performance of the overlay network and the underlay infrastructure and thus affect the tenants traffic delivery.
The NVO3 overlay network and underlay network nodes that may address such attacks MUST provide means to authenticate the Geneve packet components.
A secure deployment of a Geneve overlay must fulfill the requirement below:
A Geneve security mechanism must fulfill the requirements below:
A secure deployment of a Geneve overlay must fulfill the requirement below:
A Geneve security mechanism must fulfill the requirements below:
There are no IANA consideration for this document.
The whole document is about security.
Limiting the coverage of the authentication / encryption provides some means for an attack to craft special packets.
The current document details security requirements that are related to the Geneve protocol. Instead, [I-D.ietf-nvo3-security-requirements] provides generic architecture security requirement upon the deployment of an NVO3 overlay network. It is strongly recommended to read that document as architecture requirements also apply here. In addition, architecture security requirements go beyond the scope of Geneve communications, and as such are more likely to address the security needs upon deploying an Geneve overlay network.
This section compares how NVE communications using TLS meet the security requirements for a secure Geneve overlay deployment. In this example TLS is used over the Geneve Outer Header and secured the Geneve Header, Geneve Options and the inner payload.
The use of TLS MAY fill the security requirements for a secure Geneve deployment. However TLS cannot be considered as the Geneve security mechanism enabling all Geneve deployments.
The use of to secure a Geneve overlay deployment TLS meets SEC-OP-1 as it protects the inner payload of the tenant. It meets SEC-OP-2 as except from the UDP port, no information concerning Geneve is leaked. SEC-OP-3 is not met as TLS does not provide the ability to send dummy traffic, nor to pad. SEC-OP-4 is met as the communication is authenticated, including the Geneve Header. SEC-OP-5 is met as the Geneve Packet is processed once it has been authenticated. SEC-OP-6 is met as TLS comes with anti replay protection. SEC-OP-7 and SEC-OP-8 may also be met with security policies established per UDP destination port where only unicast is considered.
The use of TLS as a generic Geneve Security mechanism meets SEC-GEN-1 as it encrypts the inner payload. However, TLS, but does not enable partial encryption of the inner payload. TLS does not meet SEC-GEN3 or SEC-GEN-4 that requires the ability to encrypt of a subset of the Geneve Options or the Geneve Header information. In addition, TLS does not enable that some Geneve option of Header information remain in clear text while other are encrypted. Typically TLS would not be compatible with transit device. In addition is make the Geneve option visible to the transit device, TLS does not provide the ability for a transit device to authenticate the option before processing it. SEC-GEN-5 and SEC-GEN-6 are not met as TLS does not provide padding nor the ability to generate dummy packets. TLS does not meet SEC-GEN-8 that requires the ability to authenticate some combination of Geneve Header, Geneve Options, (partial) inner payload. TLS does not meet SEC-GEN-9 that requires the ability to authenticate a single Geneve Option. TLS meets SEC-GEN-10 as it provides anti replay mechanism to the authentication. SEC-GEN-11 is not natively supported as TLS security is established by UDP destination ports, rather than by flow. If more than one security policy or flow needs to be considered a binding between flow and ports needs to be established. SEC-GEN-13 is not met for mutlicast traffic.
The use of IPsec/ESP or IPsec/AH share most of the analysis performed for TLS. The main advantages of using IPsec would be that IPsec supports multicast communications and natively supports flow based security policies. However, the use of these security policies in a context of Geneve is not natively supported.
We would like to thank Ilango S Ganaga for its useful reviews and clarifications as well as Matthew Bocci, Sam Aldrin and Ignas Bagdona for moving the work forward.
| [I-D.ietf-nvo3-geneve] | Gross, J., Ganga, I. and T. Sridhar, "Geneve: Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-08, October 2018. |
| [I-D.ietf-nvo3-security-requirements] | Hartman, S., Zhang, D., Wasserman, M., Qiang, Z. and M. Zhang, "Security Requirements of NVO3", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-nvo3-security-requirements-07, June 2016. |