| Internet Engineering Task Force | D. Reilly |
| Internet-Draft | Spectracom Corporation |
| Intended status: Best Current Practice | H. Stenn |
| Expires: December 10, 2016 | Network Time Foundation |
| D. Sibold | |
| PTB | |
| June 8, 2016 |
Network Time Protocol Best Current Practices
draft-reilly-ntp-bcp-02
NTP Version 4 (NTPv4) has been widely used since its publication as RFC 5905 [RFC5905]. This documentation is a collection of Best Practices from across the NTP community.
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 http://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 December 10, 2016.
Copyright (c) 2016 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 (http://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.
NTP Version 4 (NTPv4) has been widely used since its publication as RFC 5905 [RFC5905]. This documentation is a collection of Best Practices from across the NTP community.
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
The best way to protect your computers and networks against undefined behavior and security threats related to time is to keep your NTP implementation current.
There are always new ideas about security on the Internet, and an application which is secure today could be insecure tomorrow once an unknown bug (or a known behavior) is exploited in the right way. Even our definition of what is secure has evolved over the years, so code which was considered secure when it was written can be considered insecure after some time.
Many security mechanisms rely on time as part of their operation. If an attacker can spoof the time, they may be able to bypass or neutralize other security elements. For example, incorrect time can disrupt the ability to reconcile logfile entries on the affected system with events on other systems.
Thousands of individual bugs have been found and fixed in the NTP Project's reference implementation since the first NTPv4 release in 1997. Each version release contains at least a few bug fixes. The best way to stay in front of these issues is to keep your NTP implementation current.
There are multiple versions of the NTP protocol in use, and multiple implementations in use, on many different platforms. It is recommended that NTP users actively monitor wherever they get their software to find out if their versions are vulnerable to any known attacks, and deploy updates containing security fixes as soon as practical.
The reference implementation of NTP Version 4 from Network Time Foundation (NTF) continues to be actively maintained and developed by NTF's NTP Project, with help from volunteers and NTF's supporters. The NTP software can be downloaded from ntp.org and also from NTF's github page .
Many network attacks rely on modifying the IP source address of a packet to point to a different IP address than the computer which originated it. This modification/abuse vector has been known for quite some time, and BCP 38 [RFC2827] was approved in 2000 to address this. BCP 38 [RFC2827] calls for filtering outgoing and incoming traffic to make sure that the source and destination IP addresses are consistent with the expected flow of traffic on each network interface. It is recommended that all networks (and ISP's of any size) implement this. If a machine on your network is sending out packets claiming to be from an address that is not on your network, this could be the first indication that you have a machine that has been compromised, and is being used abusively. If packets are arriving on an external interface with a source address that should only be seen on an internal network, that's a strong indication that an attacker is trying to inject spoofed packets into your network. More information is available at http://www.bcp38.info .
NTP can be made more secure by making a few simple changes to the ntp.conf file.
NTP takes the available sources of time and submits their timing data to intersection and clustering algorithms, looking for the best idea of the correct time. If there is only 1 source of time, the answer is obvious. It may not be a good source of time, but it's the only one. If there are 2 sources of time and they agree well enough, that's good. But if they don't, then ntpd has no way to know which source to believe. This gets easier if there are 3 sources of time. But if one of those 3 sources becomes unreachable or unusable, we're back to only having 2 time sources. 4 sources of time is another interesting choice, assuming things go well. If one of these sources develops a problem there are still 3 others. Seems good. Until the leap second we had in June of 2015, where several operators implemented leap smearing while others did not. See Section 4.6.1 for more information.
Starting with ntp-4.2.6, the 'pool' directive will spin up "enough" associations to provide robust time service, and will disconnect poor servers and add in new servers as-needed.
Monitor your ntpd instances. If your times sources do not generally agree, find out why and either correct the problems or stop using defective servers. See Section 4.4 for more information.
If you are using servers with attached hardware reference clocks, it is recommended that you use several different types of reference clocks. Having a diversity of sources means that any one issue is less likely to cause a service interruption.
Are all your clocks from the same vendor? Are they using the same base chipset, regardless of whether or not the finished products are from different vendors? Are they all running the same version of firmware? Chipset and firmware bugs can happen, but is often more difficult to diagnose than a standard software bug.
GA systemic problem with time from any satellite navigation service is possible and has happened. Sunspot activity can render satellite or radio-based time source unusable.
NTP Mode 6 (ntpq) and Mode 7 (ntpdc) packets are designed to permit monitoring and optional authenticated control of ntpd and its configuration. Used properly, these facilities provide vital debugging and performance information and control. Used improperly, these facilities can be an abuse vector.
Mode 7 queries have been disabled by default since 4.2.7p230, released on 2011/11/01. Unless you have a good reason for using ntpdc, do not enable Mode 7.
The ability to use Mode 6 beyond its basic monitoring capabilities can be limited to authenticated sessions that provide a 'controlkey', and similarly, if Mode 7 has been explicitly enabled its use for more than masic monitoring can be limited to authenticated sessions that provide a 'requestkey'.
Older versions of the reference implementation of NTP could be abused to participate in high-bandwidth DDoS attacks. Starting with ntp-4.2.7p26, released in April of 2010, ntpd requires the use of a nonce before replying with potentially large response packets.
As mentioned above, there are two general ways to use Mode 6 and Mode 7 requests. One way is to query ntpd for information, and this mode can be disabled with:
restrict ... noquery
The second way to use Mode 6 and Mode 7 requests is to modify ntpd's behavior. Modification of ntpd ordinarily requires an authenticated session. By default, if no authentication keys have been specified no modifications can be made. For additional protection, the ability to perform these modifications can be controlled with:
restrict ... nomodify
Users can prevent their NTP servers from participating by adding the following to their ntp.conf file:
restrict default -4 nomodify notrap nopeer noquery
restrict default -6 nomodify notrap nopeer noquery
restrict source nomodify notrap noquery # nopeer is OK if you don't use the 'pool' directive
The reference implementation of NTP allows remote monitoring. The access to this service is controlled by the restrict statement in NTP's configuration file (ntp.conf). The syntax reads:
restrict address mask address_mask nomodify
Monitor your ntpd instances so machines that are "out of sync" can be quickly identified. Monitor your system logs for messages from ntpd so abuse attempts can be quickly identified.
If your system starts getting unexpected time replies from its time servers, that can be an indication that the IP address of your server is being forged in requests to that time server, and these abusers are trying to convince your time servers to stop serving time to you.
If your system is a broadcast client and your syslog shows that you are receiving "early" time messages from your server, that is an indication that somebody may be forging packets from a broadcast server.
If your syslog shows messages that indicate you are receiving timestamps that are earlier than the current system time, then either your system clock is unusually fast or somebody is trying to launch a replay attack against your server.
If you are using broadcast mode and have ntp-4.2.8p6 or later, use the 4th field of the ntp.keys file to identify the IPs of machines that are allowed to serve time to the group.
It only takes a small amount of bandwidth and system resources to synchronize one NTP client, but NTP servers that can service tens of thousands of clients take more resources to run. Users who want to synchronize their computers should only synchronize to servers that they have permission to use.
The NTP pool project is a collection of volunteers who have donated their computing and bandwidth resources to provide time on the Internet for free. The time is generally of good quality, but comes with no guarantee whatsoever. If you are interested in using the pool, please review their instructions at http://www.pool.ntp.org/en/use.html.
If you want to synchronize many computers using the pool, consider running your own NTP servers, synchronizing them to the pool, and synchronizing your clients to your in-house NTP servers. This reduces the load on the pool.
Set up or sponsor one or more pool servers.
The UTC timescale is kept in sync with the rotation of the earth through the use of leap seconds. NTP time is based on the UTC timescale, and the protocol has the capability to broadcast leap second information. Some GNSS systems (like GPS) broadcast leap second information, so if you have a Stratum-1 server synced to GNSS (or you are synced to a lower stratum server that is ultimately synced to GNSS), you will get advance notification of impending leap seconds automatically.
While earlier versions of NTP contained some ambiguity regarding when leap seconds could occur, RFC 5905 is clear that leap seconds are processed at the end of a month. If an upstream server is broadcasting that a leap second is pending, RFC5905-compliant servers should apply it at the end of the last minute of the last day of the month.
The IETF maintains a leap second list (https://www.ietf.org/timezones/data/leap-seconds.list) for NTP users who are not receiving leap second information through an automatic source. The use of leap second files requires ntpd 4.2.6 or later. After fetching the leap seconds file onto the server, add this line to ntpd.conf to apply the file:
leapfile "/path/to your/leap-file"
You will need to restart to apply the changes.
Files are also available from other sources:
NIST: ftp://time.nist.gov/pub/leap-seconds.list
US Navy (maintains GPS Time): ftp://tycho.usno.navy.mil/pub/ntp/leap-seconds.list
IERS (announces leap seconds): https://hpiers.obspm.fr/iers/bul/bulc/ntp/leap-seconds.list
Servers with a manually configured leap second file will ignore leap second information broadcast from upstream NTP servers until the leap second file expires.
Some NTP installations may instead make use of a technique called "Leap Smearing". With this method, instead of introducing an extra second (or eliminating a second), NTP time will be slewed in small increments over a comparably large window of time around the leap second event. The amount of the slew should be small enough that clients will follow the smeared time without objecting. During the adjustment window, the NTP server's time may be offset from UTC by as much as .5 seconds. This is done to enable software that doesn't deal with minutes that have more or less than 60 seconds to function correctly, at the expense of fidelity to UTC during the smear window.
Leap Smearing was introduced in ntpd versions 4.2.8.p3 and 4.3.47. Support is not configured by default and must be added at compile time. In addition, no leap smearing will occur unless a leap smear interval is specified in ntpd.conf . For more information, refer to http://bk1.ntp.org/ntp-stable/README.leapsmear?PAGE=anno.
Leap Smearing must not be used for public-facing NTP servers, as they will disagree with non-smearing servers (as well as UTC) during the leap smear interval. However, be aware that some public-facing servers may be configured this way anyway in spite of this guidance.
System Administrators are advised to be aware of impending leap seconds and how the servers (inside and outside their organization) they are using deal with them. Individual clients must never be configured to use a mixture of smeared and non-smeared servers.
In the standard configuration NTP packets are exchanged unprotected between client and server. An adversary that is able to become a Man-In-The-Middle is therefore able to drop, replay or modify the content of the NTP packet, which leads to degradation of the time synchronization or the transmission of false time information. A profound threat analysis for time synchronization protocols are given in RFC 7384 [RFC7384]. NTP provides two internal security mechanisms to protect authenticity and integrity of the NTP packets. Both measures protect the NTP packet by means of a Message Authentication Code (MAC). Neither of them encrypts the NTP's payload, because it is not considered to be confidential.
This approach applies a symmetric key for the calculation of the MAC, which protects authenticity and integrity of the exchanged packets for a association. NTP does not provide a mechanism for the exchange of the keys between the associated nodes. Therefore, for each association, keys have to be exchanged securely by external means. It is recommended that each association is protected by its own unique key. NTP does not provide a mechanism to automatically refresh the applied keys. It is therefore recommended that the participants periodically agree on a fresh key. The calculation of the MAC may always be based on an MD5 hash. If the NTP daemon is built against an OpenSSL library, NTP can also base the calculation of the MAC upon the SHA-1 or any other digest algorithm supported by each side's OpenSSL library.
To use this approach the communication partners have to exchange the key, which consists of a keyid with a value between 1 and 65534, inclusive, and a label which indicates the chosen digest algorithm. Each communication partner adds this information to their key file in the form:
keyid label key
The key file contains the key in clear text. Therefore it should only be readable by the NTP process. Different keys are added line by line to the key file.
A NTP client establishes a protected association by appending the option "key keyid" to the server statement in the NTP configuration file:
server address key keyid
Note that the NTP process has to trust the applied key. An NTP process explicitly has to add each key it want to trust to a list of trusted keys by the "trustedkey" statement in the NTP configuration file.
trustedkey keyid_1 keyid_2 ... keyid_n
Autokey was designed in 2003 to provide a means for clients to authenticate servers. By 2011, security researchers had identified computational areas in the Autokey protocol that, while secure at the time of its original design, were no longer secure. Work was begun on an enhanced replacement for Autokey, which was called Network Time Security (NTS). NTS was published in the summer of 2013. As of February 2016, this effort was at draft #13, and about to begin 'final call'. The first unicast implementation of NTS was started in the summer of 2015 and is expected to be released in the summer of 2016.
We recommend that Autokey NOT BE USED. Know that as of the fall of 2011, a common(?) laptop computer could crack the security cookie used in the Autokey protocol in 30 minutes' time. If you must use Autokey, know that your session keys should be set to expire in under 30 minutes' time. If you have reason to believe your autokey-protected associations will be attacked, you should read https://lists.ntp.org/pipermail/ntpwg/2011-August/001714.html and decide what resources your attackers might be using, and adjust the session key expiration time accordingly.
TBD
The base NTP packet leaks important information (including reference ID and reference time) that can be used in attacks [NDSS16], [CVE-2015-8138], [CVE-2016-1548]. A remote attacker can learn this information by sending mode 3 queries to a target system and inspecting the fields in the mode 4 response packet. NTP control queries also leak important information (including reference ID, expected origin timestamp, etc) that can be used in attacks [CVE-2015-8139]. A remote attacker can learn this information by sending control queries to a target system and inspecting the response.
As such, access control should be used to limit the exposure of this information to third parties.
All hosts should only respond to NTP control queries from authorized parties. One way to do this is to only allow control queries from authorized IP addresses.
A host that is not supposed to act as an NTP server that provides timing information to other hosts should additionally drop incoming mode 3 timing queries.
An "end host" is host that is using NTP solely for the purpose of setting its own local clock. Such a host is not expected to provide time to other hosts, and relies exclusively on NTP's basic mode to take time from a set of servers. (That is, the host sends mode 3 queries to its servers and receives mode 4 responses from these servers containing timing information.) To minimize information leakage, end hosts should drop all incoming NTP packets except mode 4 response packets that come from its configured servers.
[RFC5905] says NTP clients should not accept time shifts greater than the panic threshold. Specifically, RFC5905 says "PANIC means the offset is greater than the panic threshold PANICT (1000 s) and SHOULD cause the program to exit with a diagnostic message to the system log.
However, this behavior can be exploited by attackers [NDSS16], when the following two conditions hold:
In such cases, the attacker can send the target an offset that exceeds the panic threshold, causing the client to quit. Then, when the client reboots, it ignores the panic threshold and accepts the attacker's large offset.
Hosts running with the above two conditions should be aware that the panic threshold does not protect them from attacks. A natural solution is not to run hosts with these conditions.
As an alternative, the following steps could be taken to mitigate he risk of attack.
Users should monitor their NTP instances to detect attacks. Many known attacks on NTP have particular signatures. Common attack signatures include:
The observation of many such packets could indicate that the client is under attack.
Also, Kiss-o'-Death (KoD) packets can be used in denial of service attacks. Thus, the observation of even just one KoD packet with a high poll value (e.g. poll>10) could be sign that the client is under attack.
Per [RFC5905], NTP's broadcast mode is authenticated using symmetric key cryptography. The broadcast server and all of its broadcast clients share a symmetric cryptographic key, and the broadcast server uses this key to append a message authentication code (MAC) to the broadcast packets it sends.
Importantly, all broadcast clients that listen to this server must know the cryptographic key. This mean that any client can use this key to send valid broadcast messages that look like they come from the broadcast server. Thus, a rogue broadcast client can use its knowledge of this key to attack the other broadcast clients.
For this reason, an NTP broadcast server and all its client must trust each other. Broadcast mode should only be run from within a trusted network.
In symmetric mode, two peers Alice and Bob can both push and pull synchronization to and from each other using either ephemeral symmetric passive (mode 2) or persistent symmetric active (NTP mode 1) packets. The persistent association is preconfigured and initiated at the active peer but not preconfigured at the passive peer (Bob). Upon arrival of a mode 1 NTP packet from Alice, Bob mobilizes a new ephemeral association if he does not have one already. This is a security risk for Bob because an arbitrary attacker can attempt to change Bob's time by asking Bob to become its symmetric passive peer.
For this reason, a host (Bob) should only allow symmetric passive associations to be established with trusted peers. Specifically, Bob should require each of its symmetric passive association to be cryptographically authenticated. Each symmetric passive association should be authenticated under a different cryptographic key.
The use of a different cryptographic key per peer prevents Sybil attacks. If a target host uses the same key is to authenticate all symmetric peers, then a malicious peer could attempt to set up multiple symmetric associations with the target host in order to bias the result of the target's Byzantine fault tolerant selection algorithms.
Readers of this BCP already understand how important accurate time is for network computing. And as computing becomes more ubiquitous, there will be many small "Internet of Things" devices that require accurate time. These embedded devices may not have a traditional user interface, but if they connect to the Internet they will be subject to the same security threats as traditional deployments.
Vendors of embedded devices have a special responsibility to pay attention to the current state of NTP bugs and security issues, because their customers usually don't have the ability to update their NTP implementation on their own. Those devices may have a single firmware upgrade, provided by the manufacturer, that updates all capabilities at once. This means that the vendor assumes the responsibility of making sure their devices have the latest NTP updates applied.
This should also include the ability to update the NTP server address.
(Note: do we find specific historical instances of devices behaving badly and cite them here?)
The "Kiss-o'-Death" (KoD) packet is a rate limiting mechanism where a server can tell a misbehaving client to "back off" its query rate. It is important for all NTP devices to respect these packets and back off when asked to do so by a server. It is even more important for an embedded device, which may not have exposed a control interface for NTP.
The KoD mechanism relies on clients behaving properly in order to be effective. Some clients ignore the KoD packet entirely, and other poorly-implemented clients might unintentionally increase their poll rate and simulate a denial of service attack. Server administrators should be prepared for this and take measures outside of the NTP protocol to drop packets from misbehaving clients.
Vendors of embedded devices that need time synchronization should also carefully consider where they get their time from. There are several public-facing NTP servers available, but they may not be prepared to service requests from thousands of new devices on the Internet.
Vendors are encouraged to invest resources into providing their own time servers for their devices.
The NTP Pool Project offers a program where vendors can obtain their own subdomain that is part of the NTP Pool. This offers vendors the ability to safely make use of the time distributed by the Pool for their devices. Vendors are encouraged to support the pool if they participate. For more information, visit http://www.pool.ntp.org/en/vendors.html .
A few examples of interesting NTP Deployments
TBD
TBD
Anycast is described in BCP 126 [RFC4786]. (Also see RFC 7094 [RFC7094]). With anycast, a single IP address is assigned to multiple interfaces, and routers direct packets to the closest active interface.
Anycast is often used for Internet services at known IP addresses, such as DNS. Anycast can also be used in large organizations to simplify configuration of a large number of NTP clients. Each client can be configured with the same NTP server IP address, and a pool of anycast servers can be deployed to service those requests. New servers can be added to or taken from the pool, and other than a temporary loss of service while a server is taken down, these additions can be transparent to the clients.
If clients are connected to an NTP server via anycast, the client does not know which particular server they are connected to. As anycast servers may arbitrarily enter and leave the network, the server a particular client is connected to may change. This may cause a small shift in time from the perspective of the client when the server it is connected to changes. It is recommended that anycast be deployed in environments where these small shifts can be tolerated.
Configuration of an anycast interface is independent of NTP. Clients will always connect to the closest server, even if that server is having NTP issues. It is recommended that anycast NTP implementations have an independent method of monitoring the performance of NTP on a server. In the event the server is not performing to specification, it should remove itself from the Anycast network. It is also recommended that each Anycast NTP server have at least one Unicast interface, so its performance can be checked independently of the anycast routing scheme.
One useful application in large networks is to use a hybrid unicast/anycast approach. Stratum 1 NTP servers can be deployed with unicast interfaces at several sites. Each site may have several Stratum 2 servers with a unicast interface and an anycast interface (with a shared IP address per location). The unicast interfaces can be used to obtain time from the Stratum 1 servers globally (and perhaps peer with the other Stratum 2 servers at their site). Clients at each site can be configured to use the shared anycast address for their site, simplifying their configuration. Keeping the anycast routing restricted on a per-site basis will minimize the disruption at the client if its closest anycast server changes.
The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of Sue Graves, Samuel Weiler, Lisa Perdue, Karen O'Donoghue, David Malone, and Sharon Goldberg.
This memo includes no request to IANA.
TBD
| [RFC2119] | Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997. |
| [RFC2827] | Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering: Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, DOI 10.17487/RFC2827, May 2000. |
| [RFC4786] | Abley, J. and K. Lindqvist, "Operation of Anycast Services", BCP 126, RFC 4786, DOI 10.17487/RFC4786, December 2006. |
| [RFC5905] | Mills, D., Martin, J., Burbank, J. and W. Kasch, "Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms Specification", RFC 5905, DOI 10.17487/RFC5905, June 2010. |
| [RFC7094] | McPherson, D., Oran, D., Thaler, D. and E. Osterweil, "Architectural Considerations of IP Anycast", RFC 7094, DOI 10.17487/RFC7094, January 2014. |
| [RFC7384] | Mizrahi, T., "Security Requirements of Time Protocols in Packet Switched Networks", RFC 7384, DOI 10.17487/RFC7384, October 2014. |
| [CCR16] | Malhotra, and Goldberg, "Attacking NTP's Authenticated Broadcast Mode", 2016. |
| [CVE-2015-8138] | Van Gundy, and Gardner, "NETWORK TIME PROTOCOL ORIGIN TIMESTAMP CHECK IMPERSONATION VULNERABILITY", 2016. |
| [CVE-2015-8139] | Van Gundy, , "NETWORK TIME PROTOCOL NTPQ AND NTPDC ORIGIN TIMESTAMP DISCLOSURE VULNERABILITY", 2016. |
| [CVE-2016-1548] | Gardner, and Lichvar, "Xleave Pivot: NTP Basic Mode to Interleaved", 2016. |
| [NDSS16] | Malhotra, , Cohen, , Brakke, and Goldberg, "Attacking the Network Time Protocol", 2016. |