Internet DRAFT - draft-chen-dots-attack-type-unification
draft-chen-dots-attack-type-unification
DOTS M. Chen
Internet-Draft Li. Su
Intended status: Informational CMCC
Expires: April 19, 2020 October 17, 2019
attack type unification
draft-chen-dots-attack-type-unification-00
Abstract
This document put forward a method to unify DDoS attack type
classification and attack definition description, this will help
different mitigators to mitigate DDoS attacks together.
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 April 19, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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.
Chen & Su Expires April 19, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft dots-attack-type October 2019
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. DDoS Attack Type Classification Framework . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. DDoS Attack Definition Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction
Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) is a type of resource-consuming
attack, which exploits a large number of attack resources and uses
standard protocols to attack target objects. With the cost of DDoS
attack become more cheaper, DDoS attack become more and more
frequently, a single mitigator unable to cope with all the DDoS
attack, so DOTS come up to solve the problem.
From the charter of DOTS working group, it writes that elements may
be deployed as part of a wider strategy incorporating multiple points
of DDoS detection, classification, traceback and mitigation, both on
premise or service provider based. As so far, DDoS classification
have not written to DOTS. This draft will from the perspective of
the type of DDoS attack to do DDoS classification.
Different understanding of DDoS attacks will result in different
classification and that's why do we need uniform attack types. At
present, telecom operators, cloud service providers and third-party
manufacturers have their own anti-ddos solutions.The construction of
DDoS attack mitigation and disposal system involves two devices,
namely detection equipment and cleaning equipment. In the actual
network deployment, the core nodes of the network will deploy
detection equipment and cleaning equipment at the same time to detect
and dispose attacks. After an alarm is given, the cleaning equipment
will be triggered to carry out traffic drainage and cleaning
operations. At present, the detection equipment adopts the coarse-
grained attack type determination method, which greatly reduces the
false alarm rate of attack.Different disposal of cleaning equipment
is different for different attack types. For example, TCP attack
types can be discarded directly after matching, but HTTP CC Flood can
be further determined only after interactive operation is required at
the disposal. Interactive operation may be redirection or
verification code sending. In the actual environment, there are many
Chen & Su Expires April 19, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft dots-attack-type October 2019
manufacturers of detection equipment and cleaning equipment, and each
manufacturer has its own definition method of attack type, so it is
easy to lead to the same attack, but the field of attack type
detected by different equipment manufacturers is different, which may
easily lead to disposal confusion. The attack type is inconsistently
defined, it is difficult or controversial to judge the ability of
test selection of DDoS attack detection and clean equipment.
Volume based distributed denial-of-service attack have many types
based on different protocol layer, for the service providers to
immediately protect their network services from DDoS attacks, DDoS
mitigation needs to be automated. DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS)
is a protocol to standardize real-time signaling, threat-handling
requests[I-D.ietf-dots-signal-channel], when attack target is under
attack, dots client send mitigation request to dots server for help,
If the mitigation request contains enough messages of the attack,
then the mitigator can respond very effectively. This document
recommand a method for attack type unification.
2. Terminology
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 in
[RFC2119]
The readers should be familiar with the terms defined in
[I-D.ietf-dots-requirements] [I-D.ietf-dots-use-cases]
The terminology related to YANG data modules is defined in [RFC7950]
In addition, this document uses the terms defined below:
Attack Type: used to distinguish between different methods of ddos
attack.
Attack type definition: General definition method, Covers most
current attack types.
3. DDoS Attack Type Classification Framework
The existing classification of DDoS attack type is divided into
multiple dimensions: by the protocol used, such as SYN Flood, HTTP
Flood, ICMP Flood; by attack effect, such as bandwidth occupancy
attack, Connection attack, slow attack; by the attack method, such as
abnormal message attack, reflection amplification attack;
Chen & Su Expires April 19, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft dots-attack-type October 2019
In the above definition of multiple types of attacks, there is
partial overlap. Combined with the existing classification of DDoS
attack, the consensus of classifying DDoS attack by protocol layer is
the highest.
This draft of protocol layer is based on the TCP/IP model, the basic
classification framework of DDoS attack as follows: Firstly, protocol
layer, such as Network layer, transport layer and application layer;
Secondly, Protocol and Messaging, Divide by protocol exploited by the
attack, Then define the message and port involved in the protocol,
User-defined (Protocol+port) format identifies attack types that are
not well defined or standardized.Finally, Attack method, defined
according to the method used in DDoS attack.
.....................................................................
Protocol layer |
+-------------+ +---------------+ +-----------------+
|Network layer|-----|Transport layer|------|Application layer|
+-------------+ +---------------+ +-----------------+
| | |
..............|....................|.......................|.........
Protocol and | | |
Messaging | | |
+---+ +----+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +----+ +---+ +---+
|...|---|ICMP| |TCP|---|UDP|---|...| |HTTP|--|DNS|--|...|
+---+ +----+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +----+ +---+ +---+
| | |
..............|....................|.......................|.........
Attack Method | | |
| | |
+--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+
|Flood | |Flood | |Flood |
|Fragment Flood| |Fragment Flood | |Slow attack |
|... | |... | |... |
+--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+
.....................................................................
Figure 1: Basic classification framework
4. DDoS Attack Definition Description
In view of the difference in attack definition, the method of this
draft is based on the basic classification framework to standardize
the format as follows.
[protocol layer] [protocol name] [message name/operation name/port]
[attack methods feature description field 1] [attack methods feature
Chen & Su Expires April 19, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft dots-attack-type October 2019
description field 2] [attack methods describe the standard field].
Note1: the field of [message name/operation name/port] and [attack
methods feature description field 1] and [attack methods feature
description field 2] are optional. Note2: [protocol name] and
[message name/operation name/port] must contain at least one in the
abbreviation. Note3: The fields should be distinguished by the space
character.
The field of [message name/operation name/port] can have many
choices, such as "Get/Post/SYN/ACK/Query/Memcached"; The field of
[attack methods feature description field 1 or 2] can represent by
"Connection", "Fragment", "Amplification", "Reflection", "Misuse",
"BandWidth", or "Slow"; The field of [attack methods describe the
standard field] just have two choice, one is "Flood" and the other is
"Attack".
..........................................................................................
|Protocol layer |Protocol|message name |attack methods |attack methods |attack methods|
| |Name |/operation name|feature field 1|feature field 2|describe the |
| | |/port | | |standard field|
..........................................................................................
|Network_Layer | ICMP | ------ | ------ | ------ | Flood |
..........................................................................................
|Transport_Layer | TCP | SYN | ------ | ------ | Flood |
..........................................................................................
|Transport_Layer | UDP | Memcached | Reflection | Amplification | Flood |
..........................................................................................
|Application_Layer| HTTP | GET | ------ | ------ | Flood |
..........................................................................................
Figure 2: Attack Definition Example
The complete DDoS attack definition and the abbreviated definition
examples shown as bellow:
Chen & Su Expires April 19, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft dots-attack-type October 2019
..........................................................................................
| complete DDoS attack definition | abbreviated definition |
..........................................................................................
|Network_Layer ICMP Flood | ICMP Flood |
..........................................................................................
|Transport_Layer TCP SYN Flood | TCP SYN Flood |
..........................................................................................
|Transport_Layer UDP Memcached Reflection Amplification Flood | UDP Memcached Flood |
..........................................................................................
|Application_Layer HTTP GET Flood | HTTP GET Flood |
..........................................................................................
Figure 3: Attack Definition and Abbreviated Definition Example
5. Security Considerations
TBD
6. IANA Considerations
TBD
7. Acknowledgement
TBD
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>.
8.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-dots-requirements]
Mortensen, A., K, R., and R. Moskowitz, "Distributed
Denial of Service (DDoS) Open Threat Signaling
Requirements", draft-ietf-dots-requirements-22 (work in
progress), March 2019.
Chen & Su Expires April 19, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft dots-attack-type October 2019
[I-D.ietf-dots-signal-channel]
K, R., Boucadair, M., Patil, P., Mortensen, A., and N.
Teague, "Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat
Signaling (DOTS) Signal Channel Specification", draft-
ietf-dots-signal-channel-37 (work in progress), July 2019.
[I-D.ietf-dots-use-cases]
Dobbins, R., Migault, D., Moskowitz, R., Teague, N., Xia,
L., and K. Nishizuka, "Use cases for DDoS Open Threat
Signaling", draft-ietf-dots-use-cases-20 (work in
progress), September 2019.
Authors' Addresses
Meiling Chen
CMCC
32, Xuanwumen West
BeiJing , BeiJing 100053
China
Email: chenmeiling@chinamobile.com
Li Su
CMCC
32, Xuanwumen West
BeiJing 100053
China
Email: suli@chinamobile.com
Chen & Su Expires April 19, 2020 [Page 7]
