Internet DRAFT - draft-foo-sidr-simple-leak-attack-bgpsec-no-help
draft-foo-sidr-simple-leak-attack-bgpsec-no-help
SIDR D. McPherson
Internet-Draft Verisign, Inc.
Intended status: Informational S. Amante
Expires: May 11, 2013 Level 3 Communications, Inc.
E. Osterweil
Verisign, Inc.
November 7, 2012
Route Leaks & MITM Attacks Against BGPSEC
draft-foo-sidr-simple-leak-attack-bgpsec-no-help-02
Abstract
This document describes a very simple attack vector that illustrates
how RPKI-enabled BGPSEC machinery as currently defined can be easily
circumvented in order to launch a Man In The Middle (MITM) attack via
BGP. It is meant to serve as input to the IETF's Secure Inter-Domain
Routing working group during routing security requirements
discussions and subsequent specification.
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 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 May 11, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 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
McPherson, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Route Leaks & MITM Attacks Against BGPSEC November 2012
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
McPherson, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Route Leaks & MITM Attacks Against BGPSEC November 2012
1. Introduction
This document describes a very simple attack vector that illustrates
how RPKI-enabled BGPSEC [I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol] machinery, as
currently defined, can be easily circumvented in order to launch a
Man In The Middle (MITM) attack via BGP [RFC4271]. It is meant to
serve as input to the IETF's SIDR Working Group during routing
security requirements discussions and subsequent specification.
This draft shows evidence that the attack vector described herein is
extremely common, with over 9.6 million candidate instances being
recorded since 2007. As a result of this evidence (and additional
contextual knowledge), the authors believe the capability to prevent
leaks and MITM leak-attacks should be a first-order engineering
objective in any secure routing architecture.
While the formal definition of a route leak has proven elusive in the
literature, their rampant occurrence and persistent operational
threats have proven to be anything but elusive. This document is
intended to serve as an existence proof for this threat vector, and
any supplementary formal models are left for future work.
2. Discussion
In order to understand how a MITM attack can be launched with this
attack vector, assume a multi-homed Autonomous System (AS), AS1,
connects to two ISPs (ISP1 & ISP2), and wishes to insert themselves
in the data-path between a target network (prefix P) connected to
ISP2 and systems in ISP1's network in order to launch a Man In The
Middle (MITM) attack. Further, assume that an RPKI-enabled BGPSEC
[I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol] as currently defined is fully
deployed by all parties in this scenario and functioning as designed.
+------+ +------+
| ISP1 | | ISP2 |_
+------+ +------ \
\ / ( P )
\ / \___/
+-----+
| AS1 |
+-----+
This figure depicts a multi-homed AS1, who is connected to two
upstream ISPs (ISP1 and ISP2).
McPherson, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Route Leaks & MITM Attacks Against BGPSEC November 2012
Network operators on the Internet today typically prefer customer
routes over routes learned from bi-lateral or settlement free peers.
Network operators commonly accomplish this via application of one or
more BGP [RFC4271] Path Attributes, most commonly, LOCAL_PREF as
illustrated in [RFC1998], that are evaluated earlier in the BGP Path
Selection process than AS_PATH length.
As currently defined, [I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol] only provides
two functions:
1. Is an Autonomous System authorized to originate an IP prefix?
2. Is the AS_PATH (or any similarly derived attribute such as
BGPSEC_Path) in the route the same as the list of ASes through
which the NLRI traveled?
In order for an attacker (AS1) to divert traffic from ISP1 for prefix
P through their AS they simply fail to scope the propagation of the
target prefix P (received from ISP2) by announcing a (syntactically
correct) BGPSEC update for prefix P to ISP1. This vulnerability is
what the authors refer to as a 'route leak' or a 'leak-attack' (when
intent aligns with actions). It is important to note that the
default behavior in BGP [RFC4271] is to announce all best paths to
external BGP peers, unless explicitly scoped by a BGP speaker through
configuration. Because ISP1 prefers prefixes learned from customers
(AS1) over prefixes learned from peers (ISP2), they begin forwarding
traffic for prefix P destinations through the attacker's AS (AS1).
Voila!
It is important to note that the route leaks described herein are NOT
'misorginiations.' Rather, these are cases in which routes are
propagated with their authentic origins, but are misdirected through
unexpected intermediaries.
It should be understood that any multi-homed AS can potentially
launch such an attack, even if through simple misconfiguration, as is
a common occurrence today on the Internet. As a matter of fact,
advertising these prefixes is the default behavior is many BGP
implementations, and explicit action must be taken to not advertise
all prefixes learned in BGP. Such occurrences have been historically
archived [ROUTE_LEAK_DETECTION_TOOL] and presented to the operational
community [NANOG_LEAK_TALK] since 2007. To date, over 9.6 million
such events have been recorded and are queriable
[ROUTE_LEAK_DETECTION_TOOL]. This corpus serves as a low pass
filter, and likely contains some degree of false positives. Thus,
while some may debate how many of the occurrences were malicious, or
how many were actually real leaks, the corpus itself (and its sheer
size) serves as evidence of the large magnitude of this problem.
Determination of benign versus malicious intent in these situations
McPherson, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Route Leaks & MITM Attacks Against BGPSEC November 2012
is usually imperceptible, and as such, preventative controls are
requisite.
To illustrate the above point, consider the events that transpired on
November 6th, 2012 [LEAK_ATTACK_ON_GOOGLE]. On that day a large
Internet property (who services hundreds of billions of public end
user transactions every day) became unreachable for roughly 27
minutes. At a transaction volume like that, an outage of 27 minutes
is a very visible (and likely financially measurable) event. In this
case, services became unreachable because a peered AS improperly
propagated the impacted party's AS' prefix(s). In leaks such as
this, there exists public acknowledgment by the impacted party that
[RFC6480] and [I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol] would be unable to
detect or remediate this attack.
In an environment where [I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol] is fully
deployed, it is expected that there would be high assurances that
guard the syntactic integrity of the AS_PATH (or BGPSEC_Path)
attribute. As such, one would expect that such an attribute would,
indeed, accurately reflect the attacker's AS number in the
appropriate location of the AS_PATH; however, it would not prevent an
attacker from inserting his AS in the first place. That is, nothing
in [I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol] would stop an attacker from
launching this type of leak-attack.
Discussion of out of band methods to mitigate this attack are beyond
the scope of this document, as its objective is to inform routing
protocol design choices currently being considered within the IETF's
SIDR Working Group.
3. Acknowledgements
4. IANA Considerations
5. Security Considerations
This document describes an attack on an RPKI-enabled BGPSEC and is
meant to inform the IETF Secure Inter-Domain Routing working group on
the vulnerability that exists as a result of "leaks" and attacks that
conform to this type of behavior.
The authors believe the capability to prevent leaks and leak-attacks
should be a first-order engineering objective in any secure routing
architecture.
McPherson, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Route Leaks & MITM Attacks Against BGPSEC November 2012
6. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol]
Lepinski, M., "BGPSEC Protocol Specification",
draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-06 (work in progress),
October 2012.
[LEAK_ATTACK_ON_GOOGLE]
CloudFlare, CF., "Why Google Went Offline Today and a Bit
about How the Internet Works", November 2012, <http://
blog.cloudflare.com/
why-google-went-offline-today-and-a-bit-about>.
[NANOG_LEAK_TALK]
Mauch, J., "Detecting Routing Leaks by Counting",
October 2007, <http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog41/
presentations/mauch-lightning.pdf>.
[RFC1998] Chen, E. and T. Bates, "An Application of the BGP
Community Attribute in Multi-home Routing", RFC 1998,
August 1996.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway
Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.
[RFC6480] Lepinski, M. and S. Kent, "An Infrastructure to Support
Secure Internet Routing", RFC 6480, February 2012.
[ROUTE_LEAK_DETECTION_TOOL]
Mauch, J., "BGP Routing Leak Detection System Routing Leak
Detection System", September 2007,
<http://puck.nether.net/bgp/leakinfo.cgi>.
Authors' Addresses
Danny McPherson
Verisign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
USA
Phone: +1 703.948.3200
Email: dmcpherson@verisign.com
McPherson, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Route Leaks & MITM Attacks Against BGPSEC November 2012
Shane Amante
Level 3 Communications, Inc.
1025 Eldorado Boulevard
Broomfield, CO 80021
US
Phone: +1 720.888.1000
Email: shane@level3.net
Eric Osterweil
Verisign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
USA
Email: eosterweil@verisign.com
McPherson, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 7]
