Trustworthy Location Information
draft-tschofenig-ecrit-trustworthy-location-00.txt

Status of this Memo

By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.

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.”

The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

This Internet-Draft will expire on January 8, 2009.

Abstract

For location-based applications, such as emergency calling or roadside assistance, the identity of the requestor is less important than accurate and trustworthy location information.

A number of protocols are available to supply end systems with either civic or geodetic information. For some applications it is an important requirement that location information has not been modified in transit or by the end point itself.

This document investigates different threats, the adversary model, and outlines three possible solutions. The document concludes with a suggestion on how to move forward.

Table of Contents

1.  Introduction
2.  Terminology
3.  Emergency Services
4.  Threats
    4.1.  Location Spoofing
    4.2.  Call Identity Spoofing
5.  Solution Proposals
    5.1.  Location Signing
    5.2.  Location by Reference
    5.3.  Proxy Adding Location
6.  Conclusion
7.  IANA Considerations
8.  Acknowledgments
9.  References
    9.1.  Normative References
    9.2.  Informative references
§  Authors' Addresses
§  Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements

1.  Introduction

Much of the focus in trustable networks has been on ensuring the reliability of personal identity information or verifying privileges. However, in some cases, access to trustworthy location information is more important than identity since some services are meant to be widely available, regardless of the identity of the requestor. Emergency services, such as fire department, ambulance and police, but also commercial services such as food delivery and roadside assistance are among those. Customers, competitors or emergency callers lie about their location to harm the service provider or to deny services to others, by tying up the service capacity. In addition, if third parties can modify the information, they can deny services to the requestor.

Physical security is often based on location. As a trivial example, light switches in buildings are not typically protected by keycards or passwords, but are only accessible to those within the perimeter of the building. Merchants processing credit card payments already use location information to estimate the risk that a transaction is fraudulent, based on the HTTP client's IP address (that is then translated to location). In all these cases, trustworthy location information can be used to augment identity information or, in some cases, avoid the need for role-based authorization.

A number of standardization organizations have developed mechanisms to make civic and geodetic location available to the end host. Examples for these protocols are LLDP-MED, DHCP extensions (see [2] (Schulzrinne, H., “Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4 and DHCPv6) Option for Civic Addresses Configuration Information,” November 2006.), [3] (Polk, J., Schnizlein, J., and M. Linsner, “Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol Option for Coordinate-based Location Configuration Information,” July 2004.)), HELD (see [4] (Barnes, M., Winterbottom, J., Thomson, M., and B. Stark, “HTTP Enabled Location Delivery (HELD),” August 2009.)) or the protocols developed within the IEEE as part of their link-layer specifications. The server offering this information is usually called a Location Information Server (LIS). In many cases, the end host itself can determine its location, e.g., via GPS. The location information is then provided, by reference or value, to the service-providing entities, i.e. location recipients, via application protocols, such as SIP or HTTP.

This document investigates the security threats in Section 4 (Threats), and outlines three solutions in Section 5 (Solution Proposals) that should serve as a discussion starter. We use emergency services an example to illustrate the security problems and the architectural impact, as the problems have been typically discussed in that context since the stakes are high, but the issues apply also to other examples as cited earlier.

2.  Terminology

This document re-uses a lot of the terminology defined in Section 3 of [1] (Schulzrinne, H. and R. Marshall, “Requirements for Emergency Context Resolution with Internet Technologies,” January 2008.).

3.  Emergency Services

Users of the legacy telephone network can summon emergency services such as ambulance, fire and police using a well-known emergency service number (e.g., 9-1-1 in North America, 1-1-2 in Europe). Location information is used to route emergency calls to the appropriate regional Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) that serves the caller to dispatch first-level responders to the emergency site.

Regulators have already started to demand emergency service support for voice over IP. However, enabling such critical public services using the Internet is challenging, as many of the assumptions of the PSTN no longer hold. In particular, while the local telephone company provides both the physical access and the phone service, VoIP allows and encourages to split these two roles between the Access Infrastructure Provider (AIP) and Application (Voice) Service Provider (VSP). The VSP may be located far away from the AIP and may either have no business relationship with that AIP or may be a competitor. It is also likely that the VSP will have no relationship with the PSAP and will therefore be unknown.

4.  Threats

IP-based emergency calling faces many security threats, most of which are well-known from other realms, such as protecting the privacy of communications or against denial-of-service attacks using packet flooding. Here, we focus specifically on a higher-layer threat that is unique to services where semi-anonymous users can request expensive services.

Prank calls have been a problem for emergency services, dating back to the time of street corner call boxes. Individual prank calls waste emergency services and possibly endanger bystanders or emergency service personnel as they rush to the reported scene of a fire or accident. A more recent concern is that massive prank calls can be used to disrupt emergency services, e.g., during a mass-casualty event and thus be used as a means to amplify the effect of a terror attack, for example.

Emergency services have three finite resources subject to denial of service attacks: the network and server infrastructure, call takers and dispatchers, and the first responders, such as fire fighters and police officers. Protecting the network infrastructure is similar to protecting other high-value service providers, except that trustworthy location information may be used to filter call setup requests, to weed out requests that are out of area. PSAPs even for large cities may only have a handful of PSAP call takers on duty, so even if they can, by questioning the caller, eliminate a lot of prank calls, they are quickly overwhelmed by even a small-scale attack. Finally, first responder resources are scarce, particularly during mass-casualty events.

Currently, emergency services rely on the fact that location spoofing is difficult for normal users. Additionally, the identity of most callers can be ascertained, so that the threat of severe punishments reduces prank calls. Mechanically placing a large number of emergency calls that appear to come from different locations is also difficult. Calls from payphones are subject to greater scrutiny by the call taker. In the current system, it would be very difficult for an attacker from country 'Foo' to attack the emergency services infrastructure located in country 'Bar'.

One of the main motivations of an adversary in the emergency services context is to prevent callers from utilizing emergency service support. This can be done by a variety of means, such as impersonating a PSAP or directory servers, attacking SIP signaling elements and location servers.

Attackers may want to modify, prevent or delay emergency calls. In some cases, this will lead the PSAP to dispatch emergency personnel to an emergency that does not exist and, hence, the personnel might not be available to other callers. It might also be possible for an attacker to impede the users from reaching an appropriate PSAP by modifying the location of an end host or the information returned from the mapping protocol. In some countries, regulators may not demand authentication of the emergency caller, as is true for PSTN-based emergency calls placed from payphones or no-account cell phones today. Furthermore, if identities can easily be crafted, then the value of emergency caller authentication might be limited. As a consequence, an attacker can forge emergency call information without being traced.

The above-mentioned attacks are mostly targeting individual emergency callers or a very small fraction of them. If attacks are, however, launched against the mapping architecture or against PSAP entities, a larger region and a large number of potential emergency callers are affected, particularly targeting the call takers at the PSAP.

In this context, three adversary models need to be considered:

External adversary model:

The end host, e.g., an emergency caller whose location is going to be communicated, is honest and the adversary may be located between the end host and the location server or between the end host and the PSAP. None of the emergency service infrastructure elements act maliciously.

Malicious infrastructure adversary model:

The emergency call routing elements, such as the LIS, the LoST infrastructure, used for mapping locations to PSAP address, or call routing elements, may act maliciously.

Malicious end host adversary model:

The end host itself acts maliciously, whether the owner is aware of this or whether it is acting as a bot.

We will focus only on the malicious end host adversary model since it follows today's most common adversary model on the Internet that includes bot nets.

4.1.  Location Spoofing

An adversary can provide false location information in order to fool the emergency personnel. Such an attack is particularly easy if location information is attached to the emergency call by the end host and is either not verified or cannot be verified by anyone. Only entities that are close to the caller can verify the correctness of location information.

The following list presents threats specific to location information handling:

Place shifting:

Trudy, the adversary, pretends to be at an arbitrary location. In some cases, place shifting can be limited in range, e.g., to the coverage area of a particular cell tower.

Time shifting:

Trudy pretends to be at a location she was a while ago.

Location theft:

Trudy observes Alice's location and replays it as her own.

Location swapping:

Trudy and Malory, located in different locations, can collude and swap location information and pretend to be in each other's location.

4.2.  Call Identity Spoofing

If an adversary can place emergency calls without disclosing its identity, then prank calls are more difficult to be traced. There are at least two different forms of authentication in this context; network access authentication and authentication of the emergency caller at the application layer. This differentiation is created by the split between the AIP and the VSP whereby different identities are involved.

Trying to find an adversary that did not authenticate itself to the VSP is difficult even though there is still a chance that network access authentication was exercised. If there is no authentication (neither to the PSAP, to the VSP nor to the AIP) then it is very challenging to trace the call back in order to a make a particular entity accountable. This might, for example, be the case with an open IEEE 802.11 WLAN access point even if the owner of the access point can be determined.

However, unlike for the existing telephone system, it is possible to imagine that VoIP emergency calls could require strong identity, as providing such identity information is not necessarily coupled to having a business relationship with the AIP, ISP or VSP. However, due to the time-critical nature of emergency calls, it is unlikely that multi-layers authentication can be used, so that in most cases, only the device placing the call will be able to be identified, making the system vulnerable to botnet attacks. Furthermore, deploying additional credentials for emergency service purposes, such as certificates, increases costs, introduces a significant administrative overhead and is only useful if widely used.

5.  Solution Proposals

This section presents three solution approaches to mitigate the threats discussed.

5.1.  Location Signing

One way to avoid location spoofing is to let a trusted location server sign the location information before it is sent to the end host, i.e., the entity subject to the location determination process. The signed location information is then verified by the location recipient and not by the target. Figure 1 (Location Signing) shows the communication model with the target requesting signed location in step (a), the location server returns it in step (b) and it is then conveyed to the location recipient in step (c) who verifies it. For SIP, the procedures described in [5] (Polk, J. and B. Rosen, “Location Conveyance for the Session Initiation Protocol,” March 2009.) are applicable for location conveyance.

             +-----------+               +-----------+
             |           |               | Location  |
             |    LIS    |               | Recipient |
             |           |               |           |
             +-+-------+-+               +----+------+
               ^       |                    --^
               |       |                  --
 Geopriv       |Req.   |                --
 Location      |Signed |Signed        -- Geopriv
 Configuration |Loc.   |Loc.        --   Using Protocol
 Protocol      |(a)    |(b)       --     (e.g., SIP)
               |       v        --       (c)
             +-+-------+-+    --
             | Target /  |  --
             | End Host  +
             |           |
             +-----------+

Additional information, such as timestamps or expiration times, has to be included together with the signed location to limit replay attacks. If the location is retrieved from a location server, even a stationary end host has to periodically obtain a fresh signed location, or incur the additional delay of querying during the emergency call.

Bot nets are also unlikely to be deterred by location signing. However, accurate location information would limit the usable subset of the bot net, as only hosts within the PSAP serving area would be useful in placing calls.

To prevent location-swapping attacks it is necessary to include some some target specific identity information. The included information depends on the purpose, namely either real-time verification by the location recipient or for the purpose of a post-mortem analysis when the location recipient wants to determine the legal entity behind the target for prosecution (if this is possible). As an example, a solution proposal is provided by [6] (Thomson, M. and J. Winterbottom, “Digital Signature Methods for Location Dependability,” January 2010.).

Still, for large-scale attacks launched by bot nets, this is unlikely to be helpful. Location signing is also difficult when the host provides its own location via GPS, which is likely to be a common occurrence for mobile devices. Trusted computing approaches, with tamper-proof GPS modules, may be needed in that case. After all, a device can always pretend to have a GPS device and the recipient has no way of verifying this or forcing disclosure of non-GPS-derived location information.

Location verification may be most useful if it is used in conjunction with other mechanisms. For example, a call taker can verify that the region that corresponds to the IP address of the media stream roughly corresponds to the location information reported by the caller. To make the use of bot nets more difficult, a CAPTCHA-style test may be applied to suspicious calls, although this idea is quite controversial for emergency services, at the danger of delaying or even rejecting valid calls.

5.2.  Location by Reference

The location-by-reference concept was developed so that end hosts could avoid having to periodically query the location server for up-to-date location information in a mobile environment. Additionally, if operators do not want to disclose location information to the end host without charging them, location-by-reference provides a reasonable alternative.

Figure 2 (Location by Reference) shows the communication model with the target requesting a location reference in step (a), the location server returns the reference in step (b), and it is then conveyed to the location recipient in step (c). The location recipient needs to resolve the reference with a request in step (d). Finally, location information is returned to the Location Recipient afterwards. For location conveyance in SIP, the procedures described in [5] (Polk, J. and B. Rosen, “Location Conveyance for the Session Initiation Protocol,” March 2009.) are applicable.

             +-----------+  Geopriv      +-----------+
             |           |  Location     | Location  |
             |    LIS    +<------------->+ Recipient |
             |           | Dereferencing |           |
             +-+-------+-+ Protocol (d)  +----+------+
               ^       |                    --^
               |       |                  --
 Geopriv       |Req.   |                --
 Location      |LbyR   |LbyR          -- Geopriv
 Configuration |(a)    |(b)         --   Using Protocol
 Protocol      |       |          --     (e.g., SIP)
               |       V        --       (c)
             +-+-------+-+    --
             | Target /  |  --
             | End Host  +
             |           |
             +-----------+

The details for the dereferencing operations vary with the type of reference, such as a HTTP, HTTPS, SIP, SIPS URI or a SIP presence URI. HTTP-Enabled Location Delivery (HELD) [4] (Barnes, M., Winterbottom, J., Thomson, M., and B. Stark, “HTTP Enabled Location Delivery (HELD),” August 2009.) is an example of a protocol that is able to return such references.

For location-by-reference, the location server needs to maintain one or several URIs for each target, timing out these URIs after a certain amount of time. References need to expire to prevent the recipient of such a URL from being able to permanently track a host and to offer garbage collection functionality for the location server.

Off-path adversaries must be prevented from obtaining the target's location. The reference contains a randomized component that prevents third parties from guessing it. When the location recipient fetches up-to-date location information from the location server, it can also be assured that the location information is fresh and not replayed. However, this does not address location swapping.

However, location-by-reference does not offer significant security benefits if the end host uses GPS to determine its location. At best, a network provider can use cell tower or triangulation information to limit the inaccuracy of user-provided location information.

5.3.  Proxy Adding Location

Instead of making location information available to the end host, it is possible to allow an entity in the AIP, or associated with the AIP, to retrieve the location information on behalf of the end point. This solution is possible when the application layer messages are routed through an entity with the ability to determine the location information of the end point, for example based on the end host's IP or MAC address.

When the untrustworthy end host does not have the ability to access location information, it cannot modify it either. Proxies can use various techniques, including SIP Identity, to ensure that modifications to the location in transit can be detected by the location recipient (e.g., the PSAP). As noted above, this is unlikely to work for GPS-based location determination techniques.

The obvious disadvantage of this approach is that there is a need to deploy application layer entities, such as SIP proxies, at AIPs or associated with AIPs. In case of devices that lack credentials or are unauthorized to access certain networks the procedures described in [7] (Schulzrinne, H., McCann, S., Bajko, G., Tschofenig, H., and D. Kroeselberg, “Extensions to the Emergency Services Architecture for dealing with Unauthenticated and Unauthorized Devices,” March 2010.) may very well be aligned with such an approach. Finally, it has to be noted that routing emergency calls through SIP proxies in the AIP closely matches the approaches favored by the 3GPP in their IMS emergency architecture.

6.  Conclusion

Emergency services raise a number of architectural questions, see~\cite{draft-ietf-ecrit-framework}. With the generalized emergency architecture considered within the ECRIT working group various security challenges need to be addressed, including the ability to report faked location and other attacks against the emergency services infrastructure. These types of attacks also show that the attack characteristics play an important role when dealing with the problems and lower-layer solutions, as they have been proposed as solutions to generic Denial of Service prevention (for example using cryptographic puzzles), have limited applicability.

Although it is important to ensure that location information cannot be faked there will be a larger number of GPS-enabled devices out there that make it difficult to utilize any of the security mechanisms described in Section 5 (Solution Proposals). It will be very unlikely that end users will upload their location information for "verification" to a nearby location server located in the access network. When location is obtained from the network then there one mechanism, namely Location by Reference, is currently being specified already to offer a high degree of security protection. In addition, it is extremely important to stress the need for a strong identity mechanism that allows user's to be traced back and to hold them responsible for their actions.

7.  IANA Considerations

This document does not require actions by IANA.

8.  Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the members of the IETF ECRIT and the IETF GEOPRIV working group for their input to the discussions related to this topic. We would also like to thank Andrew Newton, Murugaraj Shanmugam, Richard Barnes and Matt Lepinski for their feedback to previous versions to this document.

9.  References

9.1. Normative References

9.2. Informative references

Authors' Addresses

Full Copyright Statement

Copyright © The IETF Trust (2008).

This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.

This document and the information contained herein are provided on an “AS IS” basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property

The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.