Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-host-scanning
draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-host-scanning
opsec F. Gont
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Obsoletes: 5157 (if approved) T. Chown
Intended status: Informational University of Southampton
Expires: February 29, 2016 August 28, 2015
Network Reconnaissance in IPv6 Networks
draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-host-scanning-08
Abstract
IPv6 offers a much larger address space than that of its IPv4
counterpart. An IPv6 subnet of size /64 can (in theory) accommodate
approximately 1.844 * 10^19 hosts, thus resulting in a much lower
host density (#hosts/#addresses) than is typical in IPv4 networks,
where a site typically has 65,000 or less unique addresses. As a
result, it is widely assumed that it would take a tremendous effort
to perform address scanning attacks against IPv6 networks, and
therefore brute-force IPv6 address scanning attacks have been
considered unfeasible. This document formally obsoletes RFC 5157,
which first discussed this assumption, by providing further analysis
on how traditional address scanning techniques apply to IPv6
networks, and exploring some additional techniques that can be
employed for IPv6 network reconnaissance.
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 February 29, 2016.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Gont & Chown Expires February 29, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Reconnaissance August 2015
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements for the Applicability of Network Reconnaissance
Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. IPv6 Address Scanning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Address Configuration in IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.1. StateLess Address Auto-Configuration (SLAAC) . . . . 6
3.1.2. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol version 6
(DHCPv6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1.3. Manually-configured Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1.4. IPv6 Addresses Corresponding to Transition/Co-
existence Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.1.5. IPv6 Address Assignment in Real-world Network
Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.2. IPv6 Address Scanning of Remote Networks . . . . . . . . 17
3.2.1. Reducing the subnet ID search space . . . . . . . . . 17
3.3. IPv6 Address Scanning of Local Networks . . . . . . . . . 18
3.4. Existing IPv6 Address Scanning Tools . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.4.1. Remote IPv6 Network Scanners . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.4.2. Local IPv6 Network Scanners . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.5. Mitigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4. Leveraging the Domain Name System (DNS) for Network
Reconnaissance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.1. DNS Advertised Hosts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.2. DNS Zone Transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.3. DNS Brute Forcing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.4. DNS Reverse Mappings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5. Leveraging Local Name Resolution and Service Discovery
Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6. Public Archives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7. Application Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8. Inspection of the IPv6 Neighbor Cache and Routing Table . . . 23
9. Inspection of System Configuration and Log Files . . . . . . 24
10. Gleaning Information from Routing Protocols . . . . . . . . . 24
11. Gleaning Information from IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) 24
12. Obtaining Network Information with traceroute6 . . . . . . . 24
13. Gleaning Information from Network Devices Using SNMP . . . . 25
Gont & Chown Expires February 29, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Reconnaissance August 2015
14. Obtaining Network Information via Traffic Snooping . . . . . 25
15. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
16. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
17. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
18. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
19. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
19.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
19.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Appendix A. Implementation of a full-fledged IPv6 address-
scanning tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
A.1. Host-probing considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
A.2. Implementation of an IPv6 local address-scanning tool . . 33
A.3. Implementation of a IPv6 remote address-scanning tool . . 34
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
1. Introduction
The main driver for IPv6 [RFC2460] deployment is its larger address
space [CPNI-IPv6]. This larger address space not only allows for an
increased number of connected devices, but also introduces a number
of subtle changes in several aspects of the resulting networks. One
of these changes is the reduced host density (the number of hosts
divided by the number of addresses) of typical IPv6 subnetworks, when
compared to their IPv4 counterparts. [RFC5157] describes how this
significantly lower IPv6 host-density is likely to make classic
network address scans less feasible, since even by applying various
heuristics, the address space to be scanned remains very large. RFC
5157 goes on to describe some alternative methods for attackers to
glean active IPv6 addresses, and provides some guidance for
administrators and implementors, e.g. not using sequential addresses
with DHCPv6.
With the benefit of more than five years of additional IPv6
deployment experience, this document formally obsoletes RFC 5157. It
emphasises that while scanning attacks are less feasible, they may,
with appropriate heuristics, remain possible. At the time that RFC
5157 was written, observed scans were typically across ports on the
addresses of discovered servers; since then, evidence that some
classic address scanning is occurring is being witnessed. This text
thus updates the analysis on the feasibility of "traditional"
address-scanning attacks in IPv6 networks, and it explores a number
of additional techniques that can be employed for IPv6 network
reconnaissance. Practical examples and guidance are also included in
the Appendices.
On one hand, raising awareness about IPv6 network reconnaissance
techniques may allow (in some cases) network and security
administrators to prevent or detect such attempts. On the other
Gont & Chown Expires February 29, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Reconnaissance August 2015
hand, network reconnaissance is essential for the so-called
"penetration tests" typically performed to assess the security of
production networks. As a result, we believe the benefits of a
thorough discussion of IPv6 network reconnaissance are two-fold.
Section 3 analyzes the feasibility of traditional address-scanning
attacks (e.g. ping sweeps) in IPv6 networks, and explores a number of
possible improvements to such techniques. Appendix A describes how
the aforementioned analysis can be leveraged to produce address-
scanning tools (e.g. for penetration testing purposes). Section 4
analyzes network reconnaissance techniques that leverage the Domain
Name System (DNS). Finally, the rest of this document discusses a
number of other miscellaneous techniques that could be leveraged for
IPv6 network reconnaissance.
2. Requirements for the Applicability of Network Reconnaissance
Techniques
Throughout this document, a number of network reconnaissance
techniques are discussed. Each of these techniques have different
requirements on the side of the practitioner, with respect to whether
they require local access to the target network, and whether they
require login access (or similar access credentials) to the system on
which the technique is applied.
The following table tries to summarize the aforementioned
requirements, and serves as a cross index to the corresponding
sections.
Gont & Chown Expires February 29, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Reconnaissance August 2015
+---------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| Technique | Local | Login |
| | access | access |
+---------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| Local address scans (Section 3.3) | Yes | No |
+---------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| Remote Address scans (Section 3.2) | No | No |
+---------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| DNS Advertised Hosts (Section 4.1) | No | No |
+---------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| DNS Zone Transfers (Section 4.2) | No | No |
+---------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| DNS reverse mappings (Section 4.4) | No | No |
+---------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| Public archives (Section 6) | No | No |
+---------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| Application Participation (Section 7) | No | No |
+---------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| Inspection of the IPv6 Neighbor Cache and | No | Yes |
| Routing Table (Section 8) | | |
+---------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| Inspecting System Configuration and Log | No | Yes |
| Files (Section 9) | | |
+---------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| Gleaning information from Routing Protocols | Yes | No |
| (Section 10) | | |
+---------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| Gleaning Information from IP Flow | No | Yes |
| Information Export (IPFIX) (Section 11) | | |
+---------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| Obtaining Network Information with | No | No |
| traceroute6 (Section 12) | | |
+---------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| Gleaning Information from Network Devices | No | Yes |
| Using SNMP | | |
+---------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| Obtaining Network Information via Traffic | Yes | No |
| Snooping | | |
+---------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
Table 1: Requirements for the Applicability of Network Reconnaissance
Techniques
3. IPv6 Address Scanning
This section discusses how traditional address scanning techniques
(e.g. "ping sweeps") apply to IPv6 networks. Section 3.1 provides an
essential analysis of how address configuration is performed in IPv6,
Gont & Chown Expires February 29, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Reconnaissance August 2015
identifying patterns in IPv6 addresses that can be leveraged to
reduce the IPv6 address search space when performing IPv6 address
scans. Appendix A discusses how the insights obtained in the
previous sub-sections can be incorporated into into a fully-fledged
IPv6 address scanning tool. Section 3.5 provides advice on how to
mitigate IPv6 address scans.
3.1. Address Configuration in IPv6
IPv6 incorporates two automatic address-configuration mechanisms:
SLAAC (StateLess Address Auto-Configuration) [RFC4862] and DHCPv6
(Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol version 6) [RFC3315]. SLAAC is
the mandatory mechanism for automatic address configuration, while
DHCPv6 is optional - however, most current versions of general-
purpose operating systems support both. In addition to automatic
address configuration, hosts, typically servers, may employ manual
configuration, in which all the necessary information is manually
entered by the host or network administrator into configuration files
at the host.
The following subsections describe each of the possible configuration
mechanisms/approaches in more detail.
3.1.1. StateLess Address Auto-Configuration (SLAAC)
The basic idea behind SLAAC is that every host joining a network will
send a multicasted solicitation requesting network configuration
information, and local routers will respond to the request providing
the necessary information. SLAAC employs two different ICMPv6
message types: ICMPv6 Router Solicitation and ICMPv6 Router
Advertisement messages. Router Solicitation messages are employed by
hosts to query local routers for configuration information, while
Router Advertisement messages are employed by local routers to convey
the requested information.
Router Advertisement messages convey a plethora of network
configuration information, including the IPv6 prefix that should be
used for configuring IPv6 addresses on the local network. For each
local prefix learned from a Router Advertisement message, an IPv6
address is configured by appending a locally-generated Interface
Identifier (IID) to the corresponding IPv6 prefix.
The following subsections describe currently-deployed policies for
generating the IIDs used with SLAAC.
Gont & Chown Expires February 29, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Reconnaissance August 2015
3.1.1.1. Interface-Identifiers Embedding IEEE Identifiers
The traditional SLAAC interface identifiers are based on the link-
layer address of the corresponding network interface card. For
example, in the case of Ethernet addresses, the IIDs are constructed
as follows:
1. The "Universal" bit (bit 6, from left to right) of the address is
set to 1
2. The word 0xfffe is inserted between the OUI (Organizationally
Unique Identifier) and the rest of the Ethernet address
For example, the MAC address 00:1b:38:83:88:3c would lead to the IID
021b:38ff:fe83:883c.
NOTE:
[RFC7136] notes that all bits of an IID should be treated as
"opaque" bits. Furthermore, [I-D.ietf-6man-default-iids] is
currently in the process of changing the default IID generation
scheme to [RFC7217]. Therefore, the traditional IIDs based on
link-layer addresses are expected to become less common over time.
Throughout this document we consider that bits are numbered from
left to right, starting at 0, and that bytes are numbered from
left to right, starting at 0.
A number of considerations should be made about these identifiers.
Firstly, two bytes (bytes 3-4) of the resulting address always have a
fixed value (0xff, 0xfe), thus reducing the search space for the IID.
Secondly, the first three bytes of these identifiers correspond to
the OUI of the network interface card vendor. Since not all possible
OUIs have been assigned, this further reduces the IID search space.
Furthermore, of the assigned OUIs, many could be regarded as
corresponding to legacy devices, and thus unlikely to be used for
Internet-connected IPv6-enabled systems, yet further reducing the IID
search space. Finally, in some scenarios it could be possible to
infer the OUI in use by the target network devices, yet narrowing
down the possible IIDs even more.
For example, an organization known for being provisioned by vendor
X is likely to have most of the nodes in its organizational
network with OUIs corresponding to vendor X.
These considerations mean that in some scenarios, the original IID
search space of 64 bits may be effectively reduced to 2^24 , or n *
2^24 (where "n" is the number of different OUIs assigned to the
target vendor).
Gont & Chown Expires February 29, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Reconnaissance August 2015
Further, if just one host address is detected or known within a
subnet, it is not unlikely that, if systems were ordered in a batch,
that they may have sequential MAC addresses. Additionally, given a
MAC address observed in one subnet, sequential or nearby MAC
addresses may be seen in other subnets in the same site.
3.1.1.2. Interface-Identifiers of Virtualization Technologies
IIDs resulting from virtualization technologies can be considered a
specific sub-case of IIDs embedding IEEE identifiers (please see
Section 3.1.1.1): they employ IEEE identifiers, but part of the lower
half of the IID has specific patterns. The following subsections
describe IIDs of some popular virtualization technologies.
3.1.1.2.1. VirtualBox
All automatically-generated MAC addresses in VirtualBox virtual
machines employ the OUI 08:00:27 [VBox2011]. This means that all
SLAAC-produced addresses will have an IID of the form
a00:27ff:feXX:XXXX, thus effectively reducing the IID search space
from 64 bits to 24 bits.
3.1.1.2.2. VMWare ESX server
VMWare ESX server (versions 1.0 to 2.5) provides yet a more
interesting example. Automatically-generated MAC addresses have the
following pattern [vmesx2011]:
1. The OUI is set to 00:05:69
2. The next 16 bits of the MAC address are set to the same value as
the last 16 bits of the console operating system's primary IPv4
address
3. The final 8 bits of the MAC address are set to a hash value based
on the name of the virtual machine's configuration file.
This means that, assuming the console operating system's primary IPv4
address is known, the IID search space is reduced from 64 bits to 8
bits.
On the other hand, manually-configured MAC addresses in VMWare ESX
server employ the OUI 00:50:56, with the low-order three bytes being
in the range 00:00:00-3F:FF:FF (to avoid conflicts with other VMware
products). Therefore, even in the case of manually-configured MAC
addresses, the IID search space is reduced from 64 bits to 22 bits.
Gont & Chown Expires February 29, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Reconnaissance August 2015
3.1.1.2.3. VMWare vSphere
VMWare vSphere [vSphere] supports these default MAC address
generation algorithms:
o Generated addresses
* Assigned by vCenter Server
* Assigned by the ESXi host
o Manually-configured addresses
By default, MAC addresses assigned by the vCenter server use the OUI
00:50:56, and have the format 00:50:56:XX:YY:ZZ, where XX is
calculated as (0x80 + vCenter Server ID (in the range 0x00-0x3F)),
and XX and YY are random two-digit hexadecimal numbers. Thus, the
possible IID range is 00:50:56:80:00:00-00:50:56:BF:FF:FF, and
therefore the search space for the resulting SLAAC addresses will be
24 bits.
MAC addresses generated by the ESXi host use the OUI 00:0C:29, and
have the format 00:0C:29:XX:YY:ZZ, where XX, YY, and ZZ are the
lastthree octets in hexadecimal format of the virtual machine UUID
(based on a hash calculated by using the UUID of the ESXi physical
machine and the path to a configuration file). Thus, the MAC
addresses will be in the range 00:0C:29:XX:YY:ZZ-00:0C:29:FF:FF:FF,
and therefore the search space for the resulting SLAAC addresses will
be 22 bits.
Finally, manually-configured MAC addresses employ the OUI 00:50:56,
with the low-order three bytes being in the range 0x000000-0x3fffff
(to avoid conflicts with other VMware products). Therefore,
therefore the search space for the resulting SLAAC addresses will be
22 bits.
3.1.1.3. Temporary Addresses
Privacy concerns [Gont-DEEPSEC2011]
[I-D.ietf-6man-ipv6-address-generation-privacy] regarding interface
identifiers embedding IEEE identifiers led to the introduction of
"Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Auto-configuration in IPv6"
[RFC4941], also known as "temporary addresses" or "privacy
addresses". Essentially, "temporary addresses" produce random
addresses by concatenating a random identifier to the auto-
configuration IPv6 prefix advertised in a Router Advertisement.
Gont & Chown Expires February 29, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Reconnaissance August 2015
In addition to their unpredictability, these addresses are
typically short-lived, such that even if an attacker were to learn
one of these addresses, they would be of use for a limited period
of time. A typical implementation may keep a temporary address
preferred for 24 hours, and configured but deprecated for seven
days.
It is important to note that "temporary addresses" are generated in
addition to traditional SLAAC addresses (i.e., based on IEEE
identifiers): traditional SLAAC addresses are meant to be employed
for "server-like" inbound communications, while "temporary addresses"
are meant to be employed for "client-like" outbound communications.
This means that implementation/use of "temporary addresses" does not
prevent an attacker from leveraging the predictability of traditional
SLAAC addresses, since "temporary addresses" are generated in
addition to (rather than as a replacement of) the traditional SLAAC
addresses derived from e.g. IEEE identifiers.
The benefit that temporary addresses offer in this context is that
they reduce the exposure of the SLAAC address to any third parties
that may observe traffic sent from a host where temporary addresses
are enabled and used by default. But, in the absence of firewall
protection for the host, its SLAAC address remains liable to be
scanned from offsite.
3.1.1.4. Constant, semantically opaque IIDs
In order to mitigate the security implications arising from the
predictable IPv6 addresses derived from IEEE identifiers, Microsoft
Windows produced an alternative scheme for generating "stable
addresses" (in replacement of the ones embedding IEEE identifiers).
The aforementioned scheme is believed to be an implementation of RFC
4941 [RFC4941], but without regenerating the addresses over time.
The resulting interface IDs are constant across system bootstraps,
and also constant across networks.
Assuming no flaws in the aforementioned algorithm, this scheme would
remove any patterns from the SLAAC addresses.
However, since the resulting interface IDs are constant across
networks, these addresses may still be leveraged for host tracking
purposes [RFC7217]
[I-D.ietf-6man-ipv6-address-generation-privacy].
The benefit of this scheme is thus that the host may be less readily
detected by applying heuristics to a scan, but, in the absence of
concurrent use of temporary addresses, the host is liable to be
tracked across visited networks.
Gont & Chown Expires February 29, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Reconnaissance August 2015
3.1.1.5. Stable, semantically opaque IIDs
In response to the predictability issues discussed in Section 3.1.1.1
and the privacy issues discussed in
[I-D.ietf-6man-ipv6-address-generation-privacy], the IETF has
standardized (in [RFC7217]) a method for generating IPv6 Interface
Identifiers to be used with IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration
(SLAAC), such that addresses configured using this method are stable
within each subnet, but the Interface Identifier changes when hosts
move from one subnet to another. The aforementioned method is meant
to be an alternative to generating Interface Identifiers based on
IEEE identifiers, such that the benefits of stable addresses can be
achieved without sacrificing the privacy of users.
Implementation of this method (in replacement of Interface
Identifiers based on IEEE identifiers) would eliminate any patterns
from the Interface ID, thus benefiting user privacy and reducing the
ease with which addresses can be scanned.
3.1.2. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol version 6 (DHCPv6)
DHC DHCPv6 can be employed as a stateful address configuration
mechanism, in which a server (the DHCPv6 server) leases IPv6
addresses to IPv6 hosts. As with the IPv4 counterpart, addresses are
assigned according to a configuration-defined address range and
policy, with some DHCPv6 servers assigning addresses sequentially,
from a specific range. In such cases, addresses tend to be
predictable.
For example, if the prefix 2001:db8::/64 is used for assigning
addresses on the local network, the DHCPv6 server might
(sequentially) assign addresses from the range 2001:db8::1 -
2001:db8::100.
In most common scenarios, this means that the IID search space will
be reduced from the original 64 bits, to 8 or 16 bits. RFC 5157
recommended that DHCPv6 instead issue addresses randomly from a large
pool; that advice is repeated here.
[I-D.ietf-dhc-stable-privacy-addresses] specifies an algorithm that
can be employed by DHCPv6 servers to produce stable addresses which
do not follow any specific pattern, thus resulting in an IID search
space of 64 bits.
3.1.3. Manually-configured Addresses
In some scenarios, node addresses may be manually configured. This
is typically the case for IPv6 addresses assigned to routers (since
routers do not employ automatic address configuration) but also for
Gont & Chown Expires February 29, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Reconnaissance August 2015
servers (since having a stable address that does not depend on the
underlying link-layer address is generally desirable).
While network administrators are mostly free to select the IID from
any value in the range 1 - 2^64, for the sake of simplicity (i.e.,
ease of remembering) they tend to select addresses with one of the
following patterns:
o "low-byte" addresses: in which most of the bytes of the IID are
set to 0 (except for the least significant byte).
o IPv4-based addresses: in which the IID embeds the IPv4 address of
the network interface (as in 2001:db8::192.0.2.1)
o "service port" addresses: in which the IID embeds the TCP/UDP
service port of the main service running on that node (as in
2001:db8::80 or 2001:db8::25)
o wordy addresses: which encode words (as in 2001:db8::dead:beef)
Each of these patterns is discussed in detail in the following
subsections.
3.1.3.1. Low-byte Addresses
The most common form of low-byte addresses is that in which all the
the bytes of the IID (except the least significant bytes) are set to
zero (as in 2001:db8::1, 2001:db8::2, etc.). However, it is also
common to find similar addresses in which the two lowest order 16-bit
words (from the right to left) are set to small numbers (as in
2001::db8::1:10, 2001:db8::2:10, etc.). Yet it is not uncommon to
find IPv6 addresses in which the second lowest-order 16-bit word
(from right to left) is set to a small value in the range 0-255,
while the lowest-order 16-bit word (from right to left) varies in the
range 0-65535. It should be noted that all of these address patterns
are generally referred to as "low-byte addresses", even when,
strictly speaking, it is not only the lowest-order byte of the IPv6
address that varies from one address to another.
In the worst-case scenario, the search space for this pattern is 2^24
(although most systems can be found by searching 2^16 or even 2^8
addresses).
3.1.3.2. IPv4-based Addresses
The most common form of these addresses is that in which an IPv4
address is encoded in the lowest-order 32 bits of the IPv6 address
(usually as a result of the notation of addresses in the form
Gont & Chown Expires February 29, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Reconnaissance August 2015
2001:db8::192.0.2.1). However, it is also common for administrators
to encode one byte of the IPv4 address in each of the 16-bit words of
the IID (as in e.g. 2001:db8::192:0:2:1).
Therefore, the search space for addresses following this pattern is
that of the corresponding IPv4 prefix (or twice the size of that
search space if both forms of "IPv4-based addresses" are to be
searched).
3.1.3.3. Service-port Addresses
Address following this pattern include the service port (e.g. 80 for
HTTP) in the lowest-order byte of the IID, and set the rest of the
IID to zero. There are a number of variants for this address
pattern:
o The lowest-order 16-bit word (from right to left) may contain the
service port, and the second lowest-order 16-bit word (from right
to left) may be set to a number in the range 0-255 (as in e.g.
2001:db8::1:80).
o The lowest-order 16-bit word (from right to left) may be set to a
value in the range 0-255, while the second lowest-order 16-bit
word (from right to left) may contain the service port (as in e.g.
2001:db8::80:1).
o The service port itself might be encoded in decimal or in
hexadecimal notation (e.g., an address embedding the HTTP port
might be 2001:db8::80 or 2001:db8::50) -- with addresses encoding
the service port as a decimal number being more common.
Considering a maximum of 20 popular service ports, the search space
for addresses following this pattern is, in the worst-case scenario,
20 * 2^10.
3.1.3.4. Wordy Addresses
Since IPv6 address notation allows for a number of hexadecimal
digits, it is not difficult to encode words into IPv6 addresses (as
in, e.g., 2001:db8::dead:beef).
Addresses following this pattern are likely to be explored by means
of "dictionary attacks", and therefore computing the corresponding
search-space is not straight-forward.
Gont & Chown Expires February 29, 2016 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Reconnaissance August 2015
3.1.4. IPv6 Addresses Corresponding to Transition/Co-existence
Technologies
Some transition/co-existence technologies might be leveraged to
reduce the target search space of remote address-scanning attacks,
since they specify how the corresponding IPv6 address must be
generated. For example, in the case of Teredo [RFC4380], the 64-bit
interface identifier is generated from the IPv4 address observed at a
Teredo server along with a UDP port number.
3.1.5. IPv6 Address Assignment in Real-world Network Scenarios
Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4 provide a summary of the results
obtained by [Gont-LACSEC2013] for web servers, nameservers, and
mailservers, respectively. Table 5 provides a rough summary of the
results obtained by [Malone2008] for IPv6 routers. Table 6 provides
a summary of the results obtained by [Ford2013] for clients.
+---------------+------------+
| Address type | Percentage |
+---------------+------------+
| IEEE-based | 1.44% |
+---------------+------------+
| Embedded-IPv4 | 25.41% |
+---------------+------------+
| Embedded-Port | 3.06% |
+---------------+------------+
| ISATAP | 0% |
+---------------+------------+
| Low-byte | 56.88% |
+---------------+------------+
| Byte-pattern | 6.97% |
+---------------+------------+
| Randomized | 6.24% |
+---------------+------------+
Table 2: Measured webserver addresses
Gont & Chown Expires February 29, 2016 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Reconnaissance August 2015
+---------------+------------+
| Address type | Percentage |
+---------------+------------+
| IEEE-based | 0.67% |
+---------------+------------+
| Embedded-IPv4 | 22.11% |
+---------------+------------+
| Embedded-Port | 6.48% |
+---------------+------------+
| ISATAP | 0% |
+---------------+------------+
| Low-byte | 56.58% |
+---------------+------------+
| Byte-pattern | 11.07% |
+---------------+------------+
| Randomized | 3.09% |
+---------------+------------+
Table 3: Measured nameserver addresses
+---------------+------------+
| Address type | Percentage |
+---------------+------------+
| IEEE-based | 0.48% |
+---------------+------------+
| Embedded-IPv4 | 4.02% |
+---------------+------------+
| Embedded-Port | 1.07% |
+---------------+------------+
| ISATAP | 0% |
+---------------+------------+
| Low-byte | 92.65% |
+---------------+------------+
| Byte-pattern | 1.20% |
+---------------+------------+
| Randomized | 0.59% |
+---------------+------------+
Table 4: Measured mailserver addresses
Gont & Chown Expires February 29, 2016 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Reconnaissance August 2015
+--------------+------------+
| Address type | Percentage |
+--------------+------------+
| Low-byte | 70% |
+--------------+------------+
| IPv4-based | 5% |
+--------------+------------+
| SLAAC | 1% |
+--------------+------------+
| Wordy | <1% |
+--------------+------------+
| Randomized | <1% |
+--------------+------------+
| Teredo | <1% |
+--------------+------------+
| Other | <1% |
+--------------+------------+
Table 5: Measured router addresses
+---------------+------------+
| Address type | Percentage |
+---------------+------------+
| IEEE-based | 7.72% |
+---------------+------------+
| Embedded-IPv4 | 14.31% |
+---------------+------------+
| Embedded-Port | 0.21% |
+---------------+------------+
| ISATAP | 1.06% |
+---------------+------------+
| Randomized | 69.73% |
+---------------+------------+
| Low-byte | 6.23% |
+---------------+------------+
| Byte-pattern | 0.74% |
+---------------+------------+
Table 6: Measured client addresses
It should be clear from these measurements that a very high
percentage of host and router addresses follow very specific
patterns.
Table 6 shows that while around 70% of clients observed in this
measurement appear to be using temporary addresses, there are still a
significant amount exposing IEEE-based addresses, and addresses using
embedded IPv4 (thus also revealing IPv4 addresses).
Gont & Chown Expires February 29, 2016 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Reconnaissance August 2015
3.2. IPv6 Address Scanning of Remote Networks
While in IPv4 networks attackers have been able to get away with
"brute force" scanning attacks (thanks to the reduced search space),
successfully performing a brute-force scan of an entire /64 network
would be infeasible. As a result, it is expected that attackers will
leverage the IPv6 address patterns discussed in Section 3.1 to reduce
the IPv6 address search space.
IPv6 address scanning of remote area networks should consider an
additional factor not present for the IPv4 case: since the typical
IPv6 host subnet is a /64, scanning an entire /64 could, in theory,
lead to the creation of 2^64 entries in the Neighbor Cache of the
last-hop router. Unfortunately, a number of IPv6 implementations
have been found to be unable to properly handle large number of
entries in the Neighbor Cache, and hence these address-scan attacks
may have the side effect of resulting in a Denial of Service (DoS)
attack [CPNI-IPv6] [RFC6583].
[RFC7421] discusses the "default" /64 boundary for host subnets, and
the assumptions surrounding it. While there are reports of a handful
of sites implementing host subnets of size /112 or smaller to reduce
concerns about the above attack, such smaller subnets are likely to
make address-based scanning more feasible, in addition to
encountering the issues with non-/64 host subnets discussed in the
above draft.
3.2.1. Reducing the subnet ID search space
When scanning a remote network, consideration is required to select
which subnet IDs to choose. A typical site might have a /48
allocation, which would mean up to 65,000 or so host /64 subnets to
be scanned.
However, in the same way the search space for the IID can be reduced,
we may also be able to reduce the subnet ID space in a number of
ways, by guessing likely address plan schemes, or using any
complementary clues that might exist from other sources or
observations. For example there are a number of documents available
online (e.g. [RFC5375]) that provide recommendations for allocation
of address space, which address various operational considerations,
including: RIR assignment policy, ability to delegate reverse DNS
zones to different servers, ability to aggregate routes efficiently,
address space preservation, ability to delegate address assignment
within the organization, ability to add allocate new sites/prefixes
to existing entities without updating ACLs, and ability to de-
aggregate and advertise sub-spaces via various AS interfaces.
Gont & Chown Expires February 29, 2016 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Reconnaissance August 2015
Address plans might include use of subnets which:
o Run from low ID upwards, e.g. 2001:db8:0::/64, 2001:db8:1::/64,
etc.
o Use building numbers, in hex or decimal form.
o Use VLAN numbers.
o Use IPv4 subnet number in a dual-stack target, e.g. a site with a
/16 for IPv4 might use /24 subnets, and the IPv6 address plan may
re-use the third byte as the IPv6 subnet ID.
o Use the service "colour", as defined for service-based prefix
colouring, or semantic prefixes. For example, a site using a
specific colouring for a specific service such as VoIP may reduce
the subnet ID search space for those devices.
The net effect is that the address space of an organization may be
highly structured, and allocations of individual elements within this
structure may be predictable once other elements are known.
In general, any subnet ID address plan may convey information, or be
based on known information, which may in turn be of advantage to an
attacker.
3.3. IPv6 Address Scanning of Local Networks
IPv6 address scanning in Local Area Networks could be considered, to
some extent, a completely different problem than that of scanning a
remote IPv6 network. The main difference is that use of link-local
multicast addresses can relieve the attacker of searching for unicast
addresses in a large IPv6 address space.
While a number of other network reconnaissance vectors (such as
network snooping, leveraging Neighbor Discovery traffic, etc.) are
available when scanning a local network, this section focuses only
on address-scanning attacks (a la "ping sweep").
An attacker can simply send probe packets to the all-nodes link-local
multicast address (ff02::1), such that responses are elicited from
all local nodes.
Since Windows systems (Vista, 7, etc.) do not respond to ICMPv6 Echo
Request messages sent to multicast addresses, IPv6 address-scanning
tools typically employ a number of additional probe packets to elicit
responses from all the local nodes. For example, unrecognized IPv6
Gont & Chown Expires February 29, 2016 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Reconnaissance August 2015
options of type 10xxxxxx elicit ICMPv6 Parameter Problem, code 2,
error messages.
Many address-scanning tools discover only IPv6 link-local addresses
(rather than e.g. the global addresses of the target systems): since
the probe packets are typically sent with the attacker's IPv6 link-
local address, the "victim" nodes send the response packets using the
IPv6 link-local address of the corresponding network interface (as
specified by the IPv6 address selection rules [RFC6724]). However,
sending multiple probe packets, with each packet employing addresses
from different prefixes, typically helps to overcome this limitation.
This technique is employed by the scan6 tool of the IPv6 Toolkit
package [IPv6-Toolkit].
3.4. Existing IPv6 Address Scanning Tools
3.4.1. Remote IPv6 Network Scanners
IPv4 address scanning tools have traditionally carried out their task
for probing an entire address range (usually the entire range of a
target subnetwork). One might argue that the reason for which we
have been able to get away with such somewhat "rudimentary"
techniques is that the scale or challenge of the task is so small in
the IPv4 world, that a "brute-force" attack is "good enough".
However, the scale of the "address scanning" task is so large in
IPv6, that attackers must be very creative to be "good enough".
Simply sweeping an entire /64 IPv6 subnet would just not be feasible.
Many address scanning tools such as nmap [nmap2012] do not even
support sweeping an IPv6 address range. On the other hand, the
alive6 tool from [THC-IPV6] supports sweeping address ranges, thus
being able to leverage some patterns found in IPv6 addresses, such as
the incremental addresses resulting from some DHCPv6 setups.
Finally, the scan6 tool from [IPv6-Toolkit] supports sweeping address
ranges, and can also leverage all the address patterns described in
Section 3.1 of this document.
Clearly, a limitation of many of the currently-available tools for
IPv6 address scanning is that they lack of an appropriately tuned
"heuristics engine" that can help reduce the search space, such that
the problem of IPv6 address scanning becomes tractable.
It should be noted that IPv6 network monitoring and management tools
also need to build and maintain information about the hosts in their
network. Such systems can no longer scan internal systems in a
reasonable time to build a database of connected systems. Rather,
such systems will need more efficient approaches, e.g. by polling
Gont & Chown Expires February 29, 2016 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Reconnaissance August 2015
network devices for data held about observed IP addresses, MAC
addresses, physical ports used, etc. Such an approach can also
enhance address accountability, by mapping IPv4 and IPv6 addresses to
observed MAC addresses. This of course implies that any access
control mechanisms for querying such network devices, e.g. community
strings for SNMP, should be set appropriately to avoid an attacker
being able to gather address information remotely.
3.4.2. Local IPv6 Network Scanners
There are a variety of publicly-available local IPv6 network
scanners:
o Current versions of nmap [nmap2012] implement this functionality.
o THC's IPv6 Attack Toolkit [THC-IPV6] includes a tool (alive6) that
implements this functionality.
o SI6 Network's IPv6 Toolkit [IPv6-Toolkit] includes a tool (scan6)
that implements this functionality.
3.5. Mitigations
IPv6 address-scanning attacks can be mitigated in a number of ways.
A non-exhaustive list of the possible mitigations includes:
o Employing [RFC7217] (stable, semantically opaque IIDs) in
replacement of addresses based on IEEE identifiers, such that any
address patterns are eliminated.
o Employing Intrusion Prevention Systems (IPS) at the perimeter,
such that address scanning attacks can be mitigated.
o Enforce IPv6 packet filtering where applicable (see e.g.
[RFC4890]).
o If virtual machines are employed, and "resistance" to address
scanning attacks is deemed as desirable, manually-configured MAC
addresses can be employed, such that even if the virtual machines
employ IEEE-derived IIDs, they are generated from non-predictable
MAC addresses.
o When using DHCPv6, avoid use of sequential addresses. Ideally,
the DHCPv6 server would allocate random addresses from a large
pool.
o Use the "default" /64 size IPv6 subnet prefixes.
Gont & Chown Expires February 29, 2016 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Reconnaissance August 2015
o In general, avoid being predictable in the way addresses are
assigned.
It should be noted that some of the aforementioned mitigations are
operational, while others depend on the availability of specific
protocol features (such as [RFC7217]) on the corresponding nodes.
Additionally, while some resistance to address scanning attacks is
generally desirable (particularly when lightweight mitigations are
available), there are scenarios in which mitigation of some address-
scanning vectors is unlikely to be a high-priority (if at all
possible). And one should always remember that security by obscurity
is not a reasonable defence in itself; it may only be one (relatively
small) layer in a broader security environment.
Two of the techniques discussed in this document for local address-
scanning attacks are those that employ multicasted ICMPv6 Echo
Requests and multicasted IPv6 packets containing unsupported options
of type 10xxxxxx. These two vectors could be easily mitigated by
configuring nodes to not respond to multicasted ICMPv6 Echo Request
(default on Windows systems), and by updating the IPv6 specifications
(and/or possibly configuring local nodes) such that multicasted
packets never elicit ICMPv6 error messages (even if they contain
unsupported options of type 10xxxxxx).
[I-D.gont-6man-ipv6-smurf-amplifier] proposes such update to the
IPv6 specifications.
In any case, when it comes to local networks, there are a variety of
network reconnaissance vectors. Therefore, even if address-scanning
vectors are mitigated, an attacker could still rely on e.g. protocols
employed for the so-called "opportunistic networking" (such as mDNS
[RFC6762]), or eventually rely on network snooping as last resort for
network reconnaissance. There is ongoing work in the IETF on
extending mDNS, or at least DNS-based service discovery, to work
across a whole site, rather than in just a single subnet, which will
have associated security implications.
4. Leveraging the Domain Name System (DNS) for Network Reconnaissance
4.1. DNS Advertised Hosts
Any systems that are "published" in the DNS, e.g. MX mail relays, or
web servers, will remain open to probing from the very fact that
their IPv6 addresses are publicly available. It is worth noting that
where the addresses used at a site follow specific patterns,
publishing just one address may lead to a threat upon the other
hosts.
Gont & Chown Expires February 29, 2016 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Reconnaissance August 2015
Additionally, we note that publication of IPv6 addresses in the DNS
should not discourage the elimination of IPv6 address patterns: if
any address patterns are eliminated from addresses published in the
DNS, an attacker may have to rely on performing dictionary-based DNS
lookups in order to find all systems in a target network (which is
generally less reliable and more time/traffic consuming than mapping
nodes with predictable IPv6 addresses).
4.2. DNS Zone Transfers
A DNS zone transfer can readily provide information about potential
attack targets. Restricting zone transfers is thus probably more
important for IPv6, even if it is already good practice to restrict
them in the IPv4 world.
4.3. DNS Brute Forcing
Attackers may employ DNS brute-forcing techniques by testing for the
presence of DNS AAAA records against commonly used host names.
4.4. DNS Reverse Mappings
[van-Dijk] describes an interesting technique that employs DNS
reverse mappings for network reconnaissance. Essentially, the
attacker walks through the "ip6.arpa" zone looking up PTR records, in
the hopes of learning the IPv6 addresses of hosts in a given target
network (assuming that the reverse mappings have been configured, of
course). What is most interesting about this technique is that it
can greatly reduce the IPv6 address search space.
Basically, an attacker would walk the ip6.arpa zone corresponding to
a target network (e.g. "0.8.0.0.8.b.d.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa." for
"2001:db8:80::/48"), issuing queries for PTR records corresponding to
the domain names "0.0.8.0.0.8.b.d.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa.",
"1.0.8.0.0.8.b.d.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa.", etc. If, say, there were PTR
records for any hosts "starting" with the domain name
"0.0.8.0.0.8.b.d.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa." (e.g., the ip6.arpa domain name
corresponding to the IPv6 address 2001:db8:80::1), the response would
contain an RCODE of 0 (no error). Otherwise, the response would
contain an RCODE of 4 (NXDOMAIN). As noted in [van-Dijk], this
technique allows for a tremendous reduction in the "IPv6 address"
search space.
[I-D.howard-isp-ip6rdns] analyzes different approaches and
considerations for ISPs in managing the ip6.arpa zone for IPv6
address space assigned to many customers, which may affect the
technique described in this section.
Gont & Chown Expires February 29, 2016 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Reconnaissance August 2015
5. Leveraging Local Name Resolution and Service Discovery Services
A number of protocols allow for unmanaged local name resolution and
service. For example, multicast DNS (mDNS) [RFC6762] and DNS Service
Discovery (DNS-SD) [RFC6763], or Link-Local Multicast Name Resolution
(LLMNR) [RFC4795], are examples of such protocols.
Besides the Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs) included in products
supporting such protocols, command-line tools such as mdns-scan
[mdns-scan] and mzclient can help discover IPv6 hosts employing
mDNS/DNS-SD.
6. Public Archives
Public mailing-list archives or Usenet news messages archives may
prove a useful channel for an attacker, since hostnames and/or IPv6
addresses could be easily obtained by inspection of the (many)
"Received from:" or other header lines in the archived email or
Usenet news messages.
7. Application Participation
Peer-to-peer applications often include some centralized server which
coordinates the transfer of data between peers. For example,
BitTorrent [BitTorrent] builds swarms of nodes that exchange chunks
of files, with a tracker passing information about peers with
available chunks of data between the peers. Such applications may
offer an attacker a source of peer addresses to probe.
8. Inspection of the IPv6 Neighbor Cache and Routing Table
Information about other systems connected to the local network might
be readily available from the Neighbor Cache [RFC4861] and/or the
routing table of any system connected to such network. SAVI
[RFC6620] also builds a cache of IPv6 and link-layer addresses
(without actively participating in the Neighbor Discovery packet
exchange), and hence is another source of similar information.
These data structures could be inspected either via "login" access or
via SNMP. While this requirement may limit the applicability of this
technique, there are a number of scenarios in which this technique
might be of use. For example, security audit tools might be provided
with the necessary credentials such that the Neighbor Cache and the
routing table of all systems for which the tool has "login" or SNMP
access can be automatically gleaned. On the other hand, IPv6 worms
[V6-WORMS] could leverage this technique for the purpose of spreading
on the local network, since they will typically have access to the
Neighbor Cache and routing table of an infected system.
Gont & Chown Expires February 29, 2016 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Reconnaissance August 2015
Section 2.5.1.4 of [I-D.ietf-opsec-v6] discusses additional
considerations for the inspection of the IPv6 Neighbor Cache.
9. Inspection of System Configuration and Log Files
Nodes are generally configured with the addresses of other important
local computers, such as email servers, local file servers, web proxy
servers, recursive DNS servers, etc. The /etc/hosts file in UNIX,
SSH known_hosts files, or the Microsoft Windows registry are just
some examples of places where interesting information about such
systems might be found.
Additionally, system log files (including web server logs, etc.) may
also prove a useful channel for an attacker.
While the required credentials to access the aforementioned
configuration and log files may limit the applicability of this
technique, there are a number of scenarios in which this technique
might be of use. For example, security audit tools might be provided
with the necessary credentials such that these files can be
automatically accessed. On the other hand, IPv6 worms could leverage
this technique for the purpose of spreading on the local network,
since they will typically have access to these files on an infected
system [V6-WORMS].
10. Gleaning Information from Routing Protocols
Some organizational IPv6 networks employ routing protocols to
dynamically maintain routing information. In such an environment, a
local attacker could become a passive listener of the routing
protocol, to determine other valid subnets/prefixes and some router
addresses within that organization [V6-WORMS].
11. Gleaning Information from IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
IPFIX [RFC7012] can aggregate the flows by source addresses, and
hence may be leveraged for obtaining a list of "active" IPv6
addresses. Additional discussion of IPFIX can be found in
Section 2.5.1.2 of [I-D.ietf-opsec-v6].
12. Obtaining Network Information with traceroute6
IPv6 traceroute [traceroute6] can be employed to find router
addresses and valid network prefixes.
Gont & Chown Expires February 29, 2016 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Reconnaissance August 2015
13. Gleaning Information from Network Devices Using SNMP
SNMP can be leveraged to obtain information from a number of data
structures such as the Neighbor Cache [RFC4861], the routing table,
and the SAVI [RFC6620] cache of IPv6 and link-layer addresses. SNMP
access should be secured, such that unauthorized access to the
aforementioned information is prevented.
14. Obtaining Network Information via Traffic Snooping
Snooping network traffic can help in discovering active nodes in a
number of ways. Firstly, each captured packet will reveal the source
and destination of the packet. Secondly, the captured traffic may
correspond to network protocols that transfer information such as
host or router addresses, network topology information, etc.
15. Conclusions
In this document we have discussed issues around host-based scanning
of IPv6 networks. We have shown why a /64 host subnet may be more
vulnerable to address-based scanning that might intuitively be
thought, and how an attacker might reduce the target search space
when scanning.
We have described a number of mitigations against host-based
scanning, including the replacement of traditional SLAAC with stable
semantically-opaque IIDs (which will require support from system
vendors). We have also offered some practical guidance, around the
principle of avoiding having predictability in host addressing
schemes. Finally, examples of scanning approaches and tools are
discussed in the Appendices.
While most early IPv6-enabled networks remain dual-stack, they are
more likely to be scanned and attacked over IPv4 transport, and one
may argue that the IPv6-specific considerations discussed here are
not of an immediate concern. However, an early IPv6 deployment
within a dual-stack network may be seen by an attacker as a
potentially "easier" target, if the implementation of security
policies are not as strict for IPv6 (for whatever reason). As and
when IPv6-only networks become more common, the considerations in
this document will be of much greater importance.
16. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA registries within this document. The RFC-Editor
can remove this section before publication of this document as an
RFC.
Gont & Chown Expires February 29, 2016 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Reconnaissance August 2015
17. Security Considerations
This document explores the topic of Network Reconnaissance in IPv6
networks. It analyzes the feasibility of address-scan attacks in
IPv6 networks, and showing that the search space for such attacks is
typically much smaller than the one traditionally assumed (64 bits).
Additionally, it explores a plethora of other network reconnaissance
techniques, ranging from inspecting the IPv6 Network Cache of an
attacker-controlled system, to gleaning information about IPv6
addresses from public mailing-list archives or Peer-To-Peer (P2P)
protocols.
We expect traditional address-scanning attacks to become more and
more elaborated (i.e., less "brute force"), and other network
reconnaissance techniques to be actively explored, as global
deployment of IPv6 increases and. more specifically, as more
IPv6-only devices are deployed.
18. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Ray Hunter, who provided valuable
text that was readily incorporated into Section 3.2.1 of this
document.
The authors would like to thank (in alphabetical order) Alissa
Cooper, Spencer Dawkins, Stephen Farrell, Wesley George, Marc Heuse,
Ray Hunter, Barry Leiba, Libor Polcak, Alvaro Retana, Tomoyuki
Sahara, Jan Schaumann, Arturo Servin, and Eric Vyncke, for providing
valuable comments on earlier versions of this document.
Part of the contents of this document are based on the results of the
project "Security Assessment of the Internet Protocol version 6
(IPv6)" [CPNI-IPv6], carried out by Fernando Gont on behalf of the UK
Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure (CPNI).
19. References
19.1. Normative References
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
December 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.
[RFC3315] Droms, R., Ed., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins,
C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, DOI 10.17487/RFC3315, July
2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3315>.
Gont & Chown Expires February 29, 2016 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Reconnaissance August 2015
[RFC6620] Nordmark, E., Bagnulo, M., and E. Levy-Abegnoli, "FCFS
SAVI: First-Come, First-Served Source Address Validation
Improvement for Locally Assigned IPv6 Addresses",
RFC 6620, DOI 10.17487/RFC6620, May 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6620>.
[RFC6724] Thaler, D., Ed., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown,
"Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6
(IPv6)", RFC 6724, DOI 10.17487/RFC6724, September 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6724>.
[RFC4380] Huitema, C., "Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through
Network Address Translations (NATs)", RFC 4380,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4380, February 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4380>.
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.
[RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4862, September 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4862>.
[RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy
Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in
IPv6", RFC 4941, DOI 10.17487/RFC4941, September 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4941>.
[RFC7012] Claise, B., Ed. and B. Trammell, Ed., "Information Model
for IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)", RFC 7012,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7012, September 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7012>.
[RFC7136] Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, "Significance of IPv6
Interface Identifiers", RFC 7136, DOI 10.17487/RFC7136,
February 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7136>.
[RFC7217] Gont, F., "A Method for Generating Semantically Opaque
Interface Identifiers with IPv6 Stateless Address
Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)", RFC 7217,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7217, April 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7217>.
Gont & Chown Expires February 29, 2016 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Reconnaissance August 2015
19.2. Informative References
[RFC4795] Aboba, B., Thaler, D., and L. Esibov, "Link-local
Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)", RFC 4795,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4795, January 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4795>.
[RFC4890] Davies, E. and J. Mohacsi, "Recommendations for Filtering
ICMPv6 Messages in Firewalls", RFC 4890,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4890, May 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4890>.
[RFC5157] Chown, T., "IPv6 Implications for Network Scanning",
RFC 5157, DOI 10.17487/RFC5157, March 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5157>.
[RFC5375] Van de Velde, G., Popoviciu, C., Chown, T., Bonness, O.,
and C. Hahn, "IPv6 Unicast Address Assignment
Considerations", RFC 5375, DOI 10.17487/RFC5375, December
2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5375>.
[RFC6583] Gashinsky, I., Jaeggli, J., and W. Kumari, "Operational
Neighbor Discovery Problems", RFC 6583,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6583, March 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6583>.
[RFC6762] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Multicast DNS", RFC 6762,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6762, February 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6762>.
[RFC6763] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "DNS-Based Service
Discovery", RFC 6763, DOI 10.17487/RFC6763, February 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6763>.
[I-D.gont-6man-ipv6-smurf-amplifier]
Gont, F. and W. Liu, "Security Implications of IPv6
Options of Type 10xxxxxx", draft-gont-6man-ipv6-smurf-
amplifier-03 (work in progress), March 2013.
[I-D.howard-isp-ip6rdns]
Howard, L., "Reverse DNS in IPv6 for Internet Service
Providers", draft-howard-isp-ip6rdns-08 (work in
progress), May 2015.
Gont & Chown Expires February 29, 2016 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Reconnaissance August 2015
[RFC7421] Carpenter, B., Ed., Chown, T., Gont, F., Jiang, S.,
Petrescu, A., and A. Yourtchenko, "Analysis of the 64-bit
Boundary in IPv6 Addressing", RFC 7421,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7421, January 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7421>.
[I-D.ietf-6man-default-iids]
Gont, F., Cooper, A., Thaler, D., and S. LIU,
"Recommendation on Stable IPv6 Interface Identifiers",
draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-07 (work in progress), August
2015.
[I-D.ietf-6man-ipv6-address-generation-privacy]
Cooper, A., Gont, F., and D. Thaler, "Privacy
Considerations for IPv6 Address Generation Mechanisms",
draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-address-generation-privacy-07 (work
in progress), June 2015.
[I-D.ietf-dhc-stable-privacy-addresses]
Gont, F. and S. LIU, "A Method for Generating Semantically
Opaque Interface Identifiers with Dynamic Host
Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", draft-ietf-dhc-
stable-privacy-addresses-02 (work in progress), April
2015.
[I-D.ietf-opsec-v6]
Chittimaneni, K., Kaeo, M., and E. Vyncke, "Operational
Security Considerations for IPv6 Networks", draft-ietf-
opsec-v6-06 (work in progress), March 2015.
[CPNI-IPv6]
Gont, F., "Security Assessment of the Internet Protocol
version 6 (IPv6)", UK Centre for the Protection of
National Infrastructure, (available on request).
[V6-WORMS]
Bellovin, S., Cheswick, B., and A. Keromytis, "Worm
propagation strategies in an IPv6 Internet", ;login:,
pages 70-76, February 2006,
<https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb/papers/v6worms.pdf>.
[Malone2008]
Malone, D., "Observations of IPv6 Addresses", Passive and
Active Measurement Conference (PAM 2008, LNCS 4979), April
2008,
<http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dwmalone/p/addr-pam08.pdf>.
Gont & Chown Expires February 29, 2016 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Reconnaissance August 2015
[mdns-scan]
Poettering, L., "mdns-scan(1) manual page", 2012,
<http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/precise/man1/
mdns-scan.1.html>.
[nmap2012]
Fyodor, , "nmap - Network exploration tool and security /
port scanner", 2012, <http://insecure.org>.
[VBox2011]
VirtualBox, , "Oracle VM VirtualBox User Manual, version
4.1.2", August 2011, <http://www.virtualbox.org>.
[vmesx2011]
vmware, , "Setting a static MAC address for a virtual
NIC", vmware Knowledge Base, August 2011,
<http://kb.vmware.com/selfservice/microsites/
search.do?language=en_US&cmd=displayKC&externalId=219>.
[vSphere] vmware, , "vSphere Networking", 2014,
<http://pubs.vmware.com/vsphere-
55/topic/com.vmware.ICbase/PDF/
vsphere-esxi-vcenter-server-552-networking-guide.pdf>.
[traceroute6]
FreeBSD, , "FreeBSD System Manager's Manual:
traceroute6(8) manual page", 2009,
<https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=traceroute6>.
[Gont-DEEPSEC2011]
Gont, F., "Results of a Security Assessment of the
Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", DEEPSEC 2011
Conference, Vienna, Austria, November 2011, 2011,
<http://www.si6networks.com/presentations/deepsec2011/
fgont-deepsec2011-ipv6-security.pdf>.
[Gont-LACSEC2013]
Gont, F., "IPv6 Network Reconnaissance: Theory &
Practice", LACSEC 2013 Conference, Medellin, Colombia,
May 2013, 2013,
<http://www.si6networks.com/presentations/lacnic19/
lacsec2013-fgont-ipv6-network-reconnaissance.pdf>.
[Ford2013]
Ford, M., "IPv6 Address Analysis - Privacy In, Transition
Out", 2013, <http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2013/05/
ipv6-address-analysis-privacy-transition-out>.
Gont & Chown Expires February 29, 2016 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Reconnaissance August 2015
[THC-IPV6]
"THC-IPV6", <http://www.thc.org/thc-ipv6/>.
[IPv6-Toolkit]
"SI6 Networks' IPv6 Toolkit",
<http://www.si6networks.com/tools/ipv6toolkit>.
[BitTorrent]
"BitTorrent", <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent>.
[van-Dijk]
van Dijk, P., "Finding v6 hosts by efficiently mapping
ip6.arpa", 2012, <http://7bits.nl/blog/2012/03/26/
finding-v6-hosts-by-efficiently-mapping-ip6-arpa>.
Appendix A. Implementation of a full-fledged IPv6 address-scanning tool
This section describes the implementation of a full-fledged IPv6
address scanning tool. Appendix A.1 discusses the selection of host
probes. Appendix A.2 describes the implementation of an IPv6 address
scanner for local area networks. Appendix A.3 outlines ongoing work
on the implementation of a general (i.e., non-local) IPv6 host
scanner.
A.1. Host-probing considerations
A number of factors should be considered when selecting the probe
types and the probing-rate for an IPv6 address scanning tool.
Firstly, some hosts (or border firewalls) might be configured to
block or rate-limit some specific packet types. For example, it is
usual for host and router implementations to rate-limit ICMPv6 error
traffic. Additionally, some firewalls might be configured to block
or rate-limit incoming ICMPv6 echo request packets (see e.g.
[RFC4890]).
As noted earlier in this document, Windows systems simply do not
respond to ICMPv6 echo requests sent to multicast IPv6 addresses.
Among the possible probe types are:
o ICMPv6 Echo Request packets (meant to elicit ICMPv6 Echo Replies),
o TCP SYN segments (meant to elicit SYN/ACK or RST segments),
o TCP segments that do not contain the ACK bit set (meant to elicit
RST segments),
Gont & Chown Expires February 29, 2016 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Reconnaissance August 2015
o UDP datagrams (meant to elicit a UDP application response or an
ICMPv6 Port Unreachable),
o IPv6 packets containing any suitable payload and an unrecognized
extension header (meant to elicit ICMPv6 Parameter Problem error
messages), or,
o IPv6 packets containing any suitable payload and an unrecognized
option of type 10xxxxxx (such that a ICMPv6 Parameter Problem
error message is elicited)
Selecting an appropriate probe packet might help conceal the ongoing
attack, but may also be actually necessary if host or network
configuration causes certain probe packets to be dropped. In some
cases, it might be desirable to insert some IPv6 extension headers
before the actual payload, such that some filtering policies can be
circumvented.
Another factor to consider is the host-probing rate. Clearly, the
higher the rate, the smaller the amount of time required to perform
the attack. However, the probing-rate should not be too high, or
else:
1. the attack might cause network congestion, thus resulting in
packet loss
2. the attack might hit rate-limiting, thus resulting in packet loss
3. the attack might reveal underlying problems in the Neighbor
Discovery implementation, thus leading to packet loss and
possibly even Denial of Service
Packet-loss is undesirable, since it would mean that an "alive" node
might remain undetected as a result of a lost probe or response.
Such losses could be the result of congestion (in case the attacker
is scanning a target network at a rate higher than the target network
can handle), or may be the result of rate-limiting as it would be
typically the case if ICMPv6 is employed for the probe packets.
Finally, as discussed in [CPNI-IPv6] and [RFC6583], some IPv6 router
implementations have been found to be unable to perform decent
resource management when faced with Neighbor Discovery traffic
involving a large number of local nodes. This essentially means that
regardless of the type of probe packets, an address scanning attack
might result in a Denial of Service (DoS) of the target network, with
the same (or worse) effects as that of network congestion or rate-
limiting.
Gont & Chown Expires February 29, 2016 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Reconnaissance August 2015
The specific rates at which each of these issues may come into play
vary from one scenario to another, and depend on the type of deployed
routers/firewalls, configuration parameters, etc.
A.2. Implementation of an IPv6 local address-scanning tool
scan6 [IPv6-Toolkit] is prototype IPv6 local address scanning tool,
which has proven to be effective and efficient for the discovery of
IPv6 hosts on a local network.
The scan6 tool operates (roughly) as follows:
1. The tool learns the local prefixes used for auto-configuration,
an generates/configures one address for each local prefix (in
addition to a link-local address).
2. An ICMPv6 Echo Request message destined to the all-nodes on-link
multicast address (ff02::1) is sent with each of the addresses
"configured" in the previous step. Because of the different
Source Addresses, each probe causes the victim nodes to use
different Source Addresses for the response packets (this allows
the tool to learn virtually all the addresses in use in the local
network segment).
3. The same procedure of the previous bullet is performed, but this
time with ICMPv6 packets that contain an unrecognized option of
type 10xxxxxx, such that ICMPv6 Parameter Problem error messages
are elicited. This allows the tool to discover e.g. Windows
nodes, which otherwise do not respond to multicasted ICMPv6 Echo
Request messages.
4. Each time a new "alive" address is discovered, the corresponding
Interface-ID is combined with all the local prefixes, and the
resulting addresses are probed (with unicasted packets). This
can help to discover other addresses in use on the local network
segment, since the same Interface ID is typically used with all
the available prefixes for the local network.
The aforementioned scheme can fail to discover some addresses for
some implementation. For example, Mac OS X employs IPv6 addresses
embedding IEEE-identifiers (rather than "temporary addresses")
when responding to packets destined to a link-local multicast
address, sourced from an on-link prefix.
Gont & Chown Expires February 29, 2016 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Reconnaissance August 2015
A.3. Implementation of a IPv6 remote address-scanning tool
An IPv6 remote address scanning tool, could be implemented with the
following features:
o The tool can be instructed to target specific address ranges (e.g.
2001:db8::0-10:0-1000)
o The tool can be instructed to scan for SLAAC addresses of a
specific vendor, such that only addresses embedding the
corresponding IEEE OUIs are probed.
o The tool can be instructed to scan for SLAAC addresses that employ
a specific IEEE OUI.
o The tool can be instructed to discover virtual machines, such that
a given IPv6 prefix is only scanned for the address patterns
resulting from virtual machines.
o The tool can be instructed to scan for low-byte addresses.
o The tool can be instructed to scan for wordy-addresses, in which
case the tool selects addresses based on a local dictionary.
o The tool can be instructed to scan for IPv6 addresses embedding
TCP/UDP service ports, in which case the tool selects addresses
based on a list of well-known service ports.
o The tool can be specified an IPv4 address range in use at the
target network, such that only IPv4-based IPv6 addresses are
scanned.
The scan6 tool of [IPv6-Toolkit] implements all these techniques/
features.
Authors' Addresses
Fernando Gont
Huawei Technologies
Evaristo Carriego 2644
Haedo, Provincia de Buenos Aires 1706
Argentina
Phone: +54 11 4650 8472
Email: fgont@si6networks.com
URI: http://www.si6networks.com
Gont & Chown Expires February 29, 2016 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Reconnaissance August 2015
Tim Chown
University of Southampton
Highfield
Southampton , Hampshire SO17 1BJ
United Kingdom
Email: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Gont & Chown Expires February 29, 2016 [Page 35]
