|
|
|
|
|
|
IETF RFC 6274
Security Assessment of the Internet Protocol Version 4
Last modified on Tuesday, July 5th, 2011
 Permanent link to RFC 6274
 Search GitHub Wiki for RFC 6274
 Show other RFCs mentioning RFC 6274
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) F. Gont
Request for Comments: 6274 UK CPNI
Category: Informational July 2011
ISSN: 2070-1721
Security Assessment of the Internet Protocol Version 4
 Abstract
This document contains a security assessment of the IETF
specifications of the Internet Protocol version 4 and of a number of
mechanisms and policies in use by popular IPv4 implementations. It
is based on the results of a project carried out by the UK's Centre
for the Protection of National Infrastructure (CPNI).
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6274.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Gont Informational PAGE 1 
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
Table of Contents
1. Preface .........................................................4
1.1. Introduction ...............................................4
1.2. Scope of This Document .....................................6
1.3. Organization of This Document ..............................7
2. The Internet Protocol ...........................................7
3. Internet Protocol Header Fields .................................8
3.1. Version ....................................................9
3.2. IHL (Internet Header Length) ..............................10
3.3. Type of Service (TOS) .....................................10
3.3.1. Original Interpretation ............................10
3.3.2. Standard Interpretation ............................12
3.3.2.1. Differentiated Services Field .............12
3.3.2.2. Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) ....13
3.4. Total Length ..............................................14
3.5. Identification (ID) .......................................15
3.5.1. Some Workarounds Implemented by the Industry .......16
3.5.2. Possible Security Improvements .....................17
3.5.2.1. Connection-Oriented Transport Protocols ...17
3.5.2.2. Connectionless Transport Protocols ........18
3.6. Flags .....................................................19
3.7. Fragment Offset ...........................................21
3.8. Time to Live (TTL) ........................................22
3.8.1. Fingerprinting the Operating System in Use
by the Source Host .................................24
3.8.2. Fingerprinting the Physical Device from
which the Packets Originate ........................24
3.8.3. Mapping the Network Topology .......................24
3.8.4. Locating the Source Host in the Network Topology ...25
3.8.5. Evading Network Intrusion Detection Systems ........26
3.8.6. Improving the Security of Applications That
Make Use of the Internet Protocol (IP) .............27
3.8.7. Limiting Spread ....................................28
3.9. Protocol ..................................................28
3.10. Header Checksum ..........................................28
3.11. Source Address ...........................................29
3.12. Destination Address ......................................30
3.13. Options ..................................................30
3.13.1. General Issues with IP Options ....................31
3.13.1.1. Processing Requirements ..................31
3.13.1.2. Processing of the Options by the
Upper-Layer Protocol .....................32
3.13.1.3. General Sanity Checks on IP Options ......32
3.13.2. Issues with Specific Options ......................34
3.13.2.1. End of Option List (Type=0) ..............34
3.13.2.2. No Operation (Type=1) ....................34
Gont Informational PAGE 2
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
3.13.2.3. Loose Source and Record Route
(LSRR) (Type=131) ........................34
3.13.2.4. Strict Source and Record Route
(SSRR) (Type=137) ........................37
3.13.2.5. Record Route (Type=7) ....................39
3.13.2.6. Stream Identifier (Type=136) .............40
3.13.2.7. Internet Timestamp (Type=68) .............40
3.13.2.8. Router Alert (Type=148) ..................43
3.13.2.9. Probe MTU (Type=11) (Obsolete) ...........44
3.13.2.10. Reply MTU (Type=12) (Obsolete) ..........44
3.13.2.11. Traceroute (Type=82) ....................44
3.13.2.12. Department of Defense (DoD)
Basic Security Option (Type=130) ........45
3.13.2.13. DoD Extended Security Option
(Type=133) ..............................46
3.13.2.14. Commercial IP Security Option
(CIPSO) (Type=134) ......................47
3.13.2.15. Sender Directed
Multi-Destination Delivery (Type=149) ...47
4. Internet Protocol Mechanisms ...................................48
4.1. Fragment Reassembly .......................................48
4.1.1. Security Implications of Fragment Reassembly .......49
4.1.1.1. Problems Related to Memory Allocation .....49
4.1.1.2. Problems That Arise from the
Length of the IP Identification Field .....51
4.1.1.3. Problems That Arise from the
Complexity of the Reassembly Algorithm ....52
4.1.1.4. Problems That Arise from the
Ambiguity of the Reassembly Process .......52
4.1.1.5. Problems That Arise from the Size
of the IP Fragments .......................53
4.1.2. Possible Security Improvements .....................53
4.1.2.1. Memory Allocation for Fragment
Reassembly ................................53
4.1.2.2. Flushing the Fragment Buffer ..............54
4.1.2.3. A More Selective Fragment Buffer
Flushing Strategy .........................55
4.1.2.4. Reducing the Fragment Timeout .............57
4.1.2.5. Countermeasure for Some NIDS
Evasion Techniques ........................58
4.1.2.6. Countermeasure for Firewall-Rules
Bypassing .................................58
4.2. Forwarding ................................................58
4.2.1. Precedence-Ordered Queue Service ...................58
4.2.2. Weak Type of Service ...............................59
4.2.3. Impact of Address Resolution on Buffer Management ..60
4.2.4. Dropping Packets ...................................61
4.3. Addressing ................................................61
Gont Informational PAGE 3
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
4.3.1. Unreachable Addresses ..............................61
4.3.2. Private Address Space ..............................61
4.3.3. Former Class D Addresses (224/4 Address Block) .....62
4.3.4. Former Class E Addresses (240/4 Address Block) .....62
4.3.5. Broadcast/Multicast Addresses and
Connection-Oriented Protocols ......................62
4.3.6. Broadcast and Network Addresses ....................63
4.3.7. Special Internet Addresses .........................63
5. Security Considerations ........................................65
6. Acknowledgements ...............................................65
7. References .....................................................66
7.1. Normative References ......................................66
7.2. Informative References ....................................68
1. Preface
1.1. Introduction
The TCP/IP protocols were conceived in an environment that was quite
different from the hostile environment in which they currently
operate. However, the effectiveness of the protocols led to their
early adoption in production environments, to the point that, to some
extent, the current world's economy depends on them.
While many textbooks and articles have created the myth that the
Internet protocols were designed for warfare environments, the top
level goal for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
Internet Program was the sharing of large service machines on the
ARPANET [Clark1988]. As a result, many protocol specifications focus
only on the operational aspects of the protocols they specify and
overlook their security implications.
While the Internet technology evolved since its inception, the
Internet's building blocks are basically the same core protocols
adopted by the ARPANET more than two decades ago. During the last
twenty years, many vulnerabilities have been identified in the TCP/IP
stacks of a number of systems. Some of them were based on flaws in
some protocol implementations, affecting only a reduced number of
systems, while others were based on flaws in the protocols
themselves, affecting virtually every existing implementation
[Bellovin1989]. Even in the last couple of years, researchers were
still working on security problems in the core protocols [RFC 5927]
[Watson2004] [NISCC2004] [NISCC2005].
The discovery of vulnerabilities in the TCP/IP protocols led to
reports being published by a number of CSIRTs (Computer Security
Incident Response Teams) and vendors, which helped to raise awareness
about the threats and the best mitigations known at the time the
Gont Informational PAGE 4
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
reports were published. Unfortunately, this also led to the
documentation of the discovered protocol vulnerabilities being spread
among a large number of documents, which are sometimes difficult to
identify.
For some reason, much of the effort of the security community on the
Internet protocols did not result in official documents (RFCs) being
issued by the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force). This basically
led to a situation in which "known" security problems have not always
been addressed by all vendors. In addition, in many cases, vendors
have implemented quick "fixes" to protocol flaws without a careful
analysis of their effectiveness and their impact on interoperability
[Silbersack2005].
The lack of adoption of these fixes by the IETF means that any system
built in the future according to the official TCP/IP specifications
will reincarnate security flaws that have already hit our
communication systems in the past.
Nowadays, producing a secure TCP/IP implementation is a very
difficult task, in part because of the lack of a single document that
serves as a security roadmap for the protocols. Implementers are
faced with the hard task of identifying relevant documentation and
differentiating between that which provides correct advisory and that
which provides misleading advisory based on inaccurate or wrong
assumptions.
There is a clear need for a companion document to the IETF
specifications; one that discusses the security aspects and
implications of the protocols, identifies the possible threats,
discusses the possible countermeasures, and analyzes their respective
effectiveness.
This document is the result of an assessment of the IETF
specifications of the Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4), from a
security point of view. Possible threats were identified and, where
possible, countermeasures were proposed. Additionally, many
implementation flaws that have led to security vulnerabilities have
been referenced in the hope that future implementations will not
incur the same problems. Furthermore, this document does not limit
itself to performing a security assessment of the relevant IETF
specifications, but also provides an assessment of common
implementation strategies found in the real world.
Many IP implementations have also been subject of the so-called
"packet-of-death" vulnerabilities, in which a single specially
crafted packet causes the IP implementation to crash or otherwise
misbehave. In most cases, the attack packet is simply malformed; in
Gont Informational PAGE 5
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
other cases, the attack packet is well-formed, but exercises a little
used path through the IP stack. Well-designed IP implementations
should protect against these attacks, and therefore this document
describes a number of sanity checks that are expected to prevent most
of the aforementioned "packet-of-death" attack vectors. We note that
if an IP implementation is found to be vulnerable to one of these
attacks, administrators must resort to mitigating them by packet
filtering.
Additionally, this document analyzes the security implications from
changes in the operational environment since the Internet Protocol
was designed. For example, it analyzes how the Internet Protocol
could be exploited to evade Network Intrusion Detection Systems
(NIDSs) or to circumvent firewalls.
This document does not aim to be the final word on the security of
the Internet Protocol (IP). On the contrary, it aims to raise
awareness about many security threats based on the IP protocol that
have been faced in the past, those that we are currently facing, and
those we may still have to deal with in the future. It provides
advice for the secure implementation of the Internet Protocol (IP),
but also provides insights about the security aspects of the Internet
Protocol that may be of help to the Internet operations community.
Feedback from the community is more than encouraged to help this
document be as accurate as possible and to keep it updated as new
threats are discovered.
This document is heavily based on the "Security Assessment of the
Internet Protocol" [CPNI2008] released by the UK Centre for the
Protection of National Infrastructure (CPNI), available at
http://www.cpni.gov.uk/Products/technicalnotes/3677.aspx.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC 2119].
1.2. Scope of This Document
While there are a number of protocols that affect the way in which IP
systems operate, this document focuses only on the specifications of
the Internet Protocol (IP). For example, routing and bootstrapping
protocols are considered out of the scope of this project.
The following IETF RFCs were selected as the primary sources for the
assessment as part of this work:
Gont Informational PAGE 6
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
o RFC 791, "INTERNET PROTOCOL DARPA INTERNET PROGRAM PROTOCOL
SPECIFICATION" (45 pages).
o RFC 815, "IP DATAGRAM REASSEMBLY ALGORITHMS" (9 pages).
o RFC 919, "BROADCASTING INTERNET DATAGRAMS" (8 pages).
o RFC 950, "Internet Standard Subnetting Procedure" (18 pages)
o RFC 1112, "Host Extensions for IP Multicasting" (17 pages)
o RFC 1122, "Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Communication
Layers" (116 pages).
o RFC 1812, "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers" (175 pages).
o RFC 2474, "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers" (20 pages).
o RFC 2475, "An Architecture for Differentiated Services" (36
pages).
o RFC 3168, "The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)
to IP" (63 pages).
o RFC 4632, "Classless Inter-domain Routing (CIDR): The Internet
Address Assignment and Aggregation Plan" (27 pages).
1.3. Organization of This Document
This document is basically organized in two parts: "Internet Protocol
header fields" and "Internet Protocol mechanisms". The former
contains an analysis of each of the fields of the Internet Protocol
header, identifies their security implications, and discusses
possible countermeasures for the identified threats. The latter
contains an analysis of the security implications of the mechanisms
implemented by the Internet Protocol.
2. The Internet Protocol
The Internet Protocol (IP) provides a basic data transfer function
for passing data blocks called "datagrams" from a source host to a
destination host, across the possible intervening networks.
Additionally, it provides some functions that are useful for the
interconnection of heterogeneous networks, such as fragmentation and
reassembly.
Gont Informational PAGE 7
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
The "datagram" has a number of characteristics that makes it
convenient for interconnecting systems [Clark1988]:
o It eliminates the need of connection state within the network,
which improves the survivability characteristics of the network.
o It provides a basic service of data transport that can be used as
a building block for other transport services (reliable data
transport services, etc.).
o It represents the minimum network service assumption, which
enables IP to be run over virtually any network technology.
3. Internet Protocol Header Fields
The IETF specifications of the Internet Protocol define the syntax of
the protocol header, along with the semantics of each of its fields.
Figure 1 shows the format of an IP datagram, as specified in
[RFC 791].
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Version| IHL |Type of Service| Total Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Identification |Flags| Fragment Offset |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Time to Live | Protocol | Header Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Destination Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| [ Options ] | [ Padding ] |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Internet Protocol Header Format
Even though the minimum IP header size is 20 bytes, an IP module
might be handed an (illegitimate) "datagram" of less than 20 bytes.
Therefore, before doing any processing of the IP header fields, the
following check should be performed by the IP module on the packets
handed by the link layer:
LinkLayer.PayloadSize >= 20
where LinkLayer.PayloadSize is the length (in octets) of the datagram
passed from the link layer to the IP layer.
Gont Informational PAGE 8
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
If the packet does not pass this check, it should be dropped, and
this event should be logged (e.g., a counter could be incremented
reflecting the packet drop).
The following subsections contain further sanity checks that should
be performed on IP packets.
3.1. Version
This is a 4-bit field that indicates the version of the Internet
Protocol (IP), and thus the syntax of the packet. For IPv4, this
field must be 4.
When a link-layer protocol de-multiplexes a packet to an Internet
module, it does so based on a Protocol Type field in the data-link
packet header.
In theory, different versions of IP could coexist on a network by
using the same Protocol Type at the link layer, but a different value
in the Version field of the IP header. Thus, a single IP module
could handle all versions of the Internet Protocol, differentiating
them by means of this field.
However, in practice different versions of IP are identified by a
different Protocol Type (e.g., EtherType in the case of Ethernet)
number in the link-layer protocol header. For example, IPv4
datagrams are encapsulated in Ethernet frames using an EtherType of
0x0800, while IPv6 datagrams are encapsulated in Ethernet frames
using an EtherType of 0x86DD [IANA_ET].
Therefore, if an IPv4 module receives a packet, the Version field
must be checked to be 4. If this check fails, the packet should be
silently dropped, and this event should be logged (e.g., a counter
could be incremented reflecting the packet drop). If an
implementation does not perform this check, an attacker could use a
different value for the Version field, possibly evading NIDSs that
decide which pattern-matching rules to apply based on the Version
field.
If the link-layer protocol employs a specific "Protocol Type" value
for encapsulating IPv4 packets (e.g., as is the case of Ethernet), a
node should check that IPv4 packets are de-multiplexed to the IPv4
module when such value was used for the Protocol Type field of the
link-layer protocol. If a packet does not pass this check, it should
be silently dropped.
Gont Informational PAGE 9
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
An attacker could encapsulate IPv4 packets using other link-layer
"Protocol Type" values to try to subvert link-layer Access Control
Lists (ACLs) and/or for tampering with NIDSs.
3.2. IHL (Internet Header Length)
The IHL (Internet Header Length) field indicates the length of the
Internet header in 32-bit words (4 bytes). The following paragraphs
describe a number of sanity checks to be performed on the IHL field,
such that possible packet-of-death vulnerabilities are avoided.
As the minimum datagram size is 20 bytes, the minimum legal value for
this field is 5. Therefore, the following check should be enforced:
IHL >= 5
If the packet does not pass this check, it should be dropped, and
this event should be logged (e.g., a counter could be incremented
reflecting the packet drop).
For obvious reasons, the Internet header cannot be larger than the
whole Internet datagram of which it is part. Therefore, the
following check should be enforced:
IHL * 4 <= Total Length
This needs to refer to the size of the datagram as specified by
the sender in the Total Length field, since link layers might have
added some padding (see Section 3.4).
If the packet does not pass this check, it should be dropped, and
this event should be logged (e.g., a counter could be incremented
reflecting the packet drop).
The above check allows for Internet datagrams with no data bytes in
the payload that, while nonsensical for virtually every protocol that
runs over IP, are still legal.
3.3. Type of Service (TOS)
3.3.1. Original Interpretation
Figure 2 shows the original syntax of the Type of Service field, as
defined by RFC 791 [RFC 791] and updated by RFC 1349 [RFC 1349]. This
definition has been superseded long ago (see Sections 3.3.2.1 and
3.3.2.2), but it is still assumed by some deployed implementations.
Gont Informational PAGE 10
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| PRECEDENCE | D | T | R | C | 0 |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Figure 2: Type of Service Field (Original Interpretation)
+----------+----------------------------------------------+
| Bits 0-2 | Precedence |
+----------+----------------------------------------------+
| Bit 3 | 0 = Normal Delay, 1 = Low Delay |
+----------+----------------------------------------------+
| Bit 4 | 0 = Normal Throughput, 1 = High Throughput |
+----------+----------------------------------------------+
| Bit 5 | 0 = Normal Reliability, 1 = High Reliability |
+----------+----------------------------------------------+
| Bit 6 | 0 = Normal Cost, 1 = Minimize Monetary Cost |
+----------+----------------------------------------------+
| Bits 7 | Reserved for Future Use (must be zero) |
+----------+----------------------------------------------+
Table 1: Semantics of the TOS Bits
+-----+-----------------+
| 111 | Network Control |
+-----+-----------------+
| 110 | Internetwork |
+-----+-----------------+
| 101 | CRITIC/ECP |
+-----+-----------------+
| 100 | Flash Override |
+-----+-----------------+
| 011 | Flash |
+-----+-----------------+
| 010 | Immediate |
+-----+-----------------+
| 001 | Priority |
+-----+-----------------+
| 000 | Routine |
+-----+-----------------+
Table 2: Semantics of the Possible Precedence Field Values
The Type of Service field can be used to affect the way in which the
packet is treated by the systems of a network that process it.
Section 4.2.1 ("Precedence-Ordered Queue Service") and Section 4.2.2
Gont Informational PAGE 11
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
("Weak Type of Service") of this document describe the security
implications of the Type of Service field in the forwarding of
packets.
3.3.2. Standard Interpretation
3.3.2.1. Differentiated Services Field
The Differentiated Services Architecture is intended to enable
scalable service discrimination in the Internet without the need for
per-flow state and signaling at every hop [RFC 2475]. RFC 2474
[RFC 2474] redefined the IP "Type of Service" octet, introducing a
Differentiated Services Field (DS Field). Figure 3 shows the format
of the field.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| DSCP | CU |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Figure 3: Revised Structure of the Type of Service Field (RFC 2474)
The DSCP ("Differentiated Services CodePoint") is used to select the
treatment the packet is to receive within the Differentiated Services
Domain. The CU ("Currently Unused") field was, at the time the
specification was issued, reserved for future use. The DSCP field is
used to select a PHB (Per-Hop Behavior), by matching against the
entire 6-bit field.
Considering that the DSCP field determines how a packet is treated
within a Differentiated Services (DS) domain, an attacker could send
packets with a forged DSCP field to perform a theft of service or
even a Denial-of-Service (DoS) attack. In particular, an attacker
could forge packets with a codepoint of the type '11x000' which,
according to Section 4.2.2.2 of RFC 2474 [RFC 2474], would give the
packets preferential forwarding treatment when compared with the PHB
selected by the codepoint '000000'. If strict priority queuing were
utilized, a continuous stream of such packets could cause a DoS to
other flows that have a DSCP of lower relative order.
As the DS field is incompatible with the original Type of Service
field, both DS domains and networks using the original Type of
Service field should protect themselves by remarking the
corresponding field where appropriate, probably deploying remarking
boundary nodes. Nevertheless, care must be taken so that packets
received with an unrecognized DSCP do not cause the handling system
to malfunction.
Gont Informational PAGE 12
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
3.3.2.2. Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)
RFC 3168 [RFC 3168] specifies a mechanism for routers to signal
congestion to hosts exchanging IP packets, by marking the offending
packets rather than discarding them. RFC 3168 defines the ECN field,
which utilizes the CU field defined in RFC 2474 [RFC 2474]. Figure 4
shows the current syntax of the IP Type of Service field, with the
DSCP field used for Differentiated Services and the ECN field.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| DS FIELD, DSCP | ECN FIELD |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Figure 4: The Differentiated Services and ECN Fields in IP
As such, the ECN field defines four codepoints:
+-----------+-----------+
| ECN field | Codepoint |
+-----------+-----------+
| 00 | Not-ECT |
+-----------+-----------+
| 01 | ECT(1) |
+-----------+-----------+
| 10 | ECT(0) |
+-----------+-----------+
| 11 | CE |
+-----------+-----------+
Table 3: ECN Codepoints
ECN is an end-to-end transport protocol mechanism based on
notifications by routers through which a packet flow passes. To
allow this interaction to happen on the fast path of routers, the ECN
field is located at a fixed location in the IP header. However, its
use must be negotiated at the transport layer, and the accumulated
congestion notifications must be communicated back to the sending
node using transport protocol means. Thus, ECN support must be
specified per transport protocol.
[RFC 6040] specifies how the Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)
field of the IP header should be constructed on entry to and exit
from any IP-in-IP tunnel.
Gont Informational PAGE 13
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
The security implications of ECN are discussed in detail in a number
of Sections of RFC 3168. Of the possible threats discussed in the
ECN specification, we believe that one that can be easily exploited
is that of a host falsely indicating ECN-Capability.
An attacker could set the ECT codepoint in the packets it sends, to
signal the network that the endpoints of the transport protocol are
ECN-capable. Consequently, when experiencing moderate congestion,
routers using active queue management based on Random Early Detection
(RED) would mark the packets (with the CE codepoint) rather than
discard them. In this same scenario, packets of competing flows that
do not have the ECT codepoint set would be dropped. Therefore, an
attacker would get better network service than the competing flows.
However, if this moderate congestion turned into heavy congestion,
routers should switch to drop packets, regardless of whether or not
the packets have the ECT codepoint set.
A number of other threats could arise if an attacker was a man in the
middle (i.e., was in the middle of the path the packets travel to get
to the destination host). For a detailed discussion of those cases,
we urge the reader to consult Section 16 of RFC 3168.
There is also ongoing work in the research community and the IETF to
define alternate semantics for the CU/ECN field of IP TOS octet (see
[RFC 5559], [RFC 5670], and [RFC 5696]). The application of these
methods must be confined to tightly administered domains, and on exit
from such domains, all packets need to be (re-)marked with ECN
semantics.
3.4. Total Length
The Total Length field is the length of the datagram, measured in
bytes, including both the IP header and the IP payload. Being a
16-bit field, it allows for datagrams of up to 65535 bytes. RFC 791
[RFC 791] states that all hosts should be prepared to receive
datagrams of up to 576 bytes (whether they arrive as a whole, or in
fragments). However, most modern implementations can reassemble
datagrams of at least 9 Kbytes.
Usually, a host will not send to a remote peer an IP datagram larger
than 576 bytes, unless it is explicitly signaled that the remote peer
is able to receive such "large" datagrams (for example, by means of
TCP's Maximum Segment Size (MSS) option). However, systems should
assume that they may receive datagrams larger than 576 bytes,
regardless of whether or not they signal their remote peers to do so.
In fact, it is common for Network File System (NFS) [RFC 3530]
Gont Informational PAGE 14
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
implementations to send datagrams larger than 576 bytes, even without
explicit signaling that the destination system can receive such
"large" datagram.
Additionally, see the discussion in Section 4.1 ("Fragment
Reassembly") regarding the possible packet sizes resulting from
fragment reassembly.
Implementations should be aware that the IP module could be handed a
packet larger than the value actually contained in the Total Length
field. Such a difference usually has to do with legitimate padding
bytes at the link-layer protocol, but it could also be the result of
malicious activity by an attacker. Furthermore, even when the
maximum length of an IP datagram is 65535 bytes, if the link-layer
technology in use allows for payloads larger than 65535 bytes, an
attacker could forge such a large link-layer packet, meaning it for
the IP module. If the IP module of the receiving system were not
prepared to handle such an oversized link-layer payload, an
unexpected failure might occur. Therefore, the memory buffer used by
the IP module to store the link-layer payload should be allocated
according to the payload size reported by the link layer, rather than
according to the Total Length field of the IP packet it contains.
The IP module could also be handed a packet that is smaller than the
actual IP packet size claimed by the Total Length field. This could
be used, for example, to produce an information leakage. Therefore,
the following check should be performed:
LinkLayer.PayloadSize >= Total Length
If this check fails, the IP packet should be dropped, and this event
should be logged (e.g., a counter could be incremented reflecting the
packet drop). As the previous expression implies, the number of
bytes passed by the link layer to the IP module should contain at
least as many bytes as claimed by the Total Length field of the IP
header.
[US-CERT2002] is an example of the exploitation of a forged IP
Total Length field to produce an information leakage attack.
3.5. Identification (ID)
The Identification field is set by the sending host to aid in the
reassembly of fragmented datagrams. At any time, it needs to be
unique for each set of {Source Address, Destination Address,
Protocol}.
Gont Informational PAGE 15
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
In many systems, the value used for this field is determined at the
IP layer, on a protocol-independent basis. Many of those systems
also simply increment the IP Identification field for each packet
they send.
This implementation strategy is inappropriate for a number of
reasons. Firstly, if the Identification field is set on a protocol-
independent basis, it will wrap more often than necessary, and thus
the implementation will be more prone to the problems discussed in
[Kent1987] and [RFC 4963]. Secondly, this implementation strategy
opens the door to an information leakage that can be exploited in a
number of ways.
[Sanfilippo1998a] describes how the Identification field can be
leveraged to determine the packet rate at which a given system is
transmitting information. Later, [Sanfilippo1998b] described how a
system with such an implementation can be used to perform a stealth
port scan to a third (victim) host. [Sanfilippo1999] explained how
to exploit this implementation strategy to uncover the rules of a
number of firewalls. [Bellovin2002] explains how the IP
Identification field can be exploited to count the number of systems
behind a NAT. [Fyodor2004] is an entire paper on most (if not all)
of the ways to exploit the information provided by the Identification
field of the IP header.
Section 4.1 contains a discussion of the security implications of
the IP fragment reassembly mechanism, which is the primary
"consumer" of this field.
3.5.1. Some Workarounds Implemented by the Industry
As the IP Identification field is only used for the reassembly of
datagrams, some operating systems (such as Linux) decided to set this
field to 0 in all packets that have the DF bit set. This would, in
principle, avoid any type of information leakage. However, it was
detected that some non-RFC-compliant middle-boxes fragmented packets
even if they had the DF bit set. In such a scenario, all datagrams
originally sent with the DF bit set would all result in fragments
with an Identification field of 0, which would lead to problems
("collision" of the Identification number) in the reassembly process.
Linux (and Solaris) later set the IP Identification field on a per-
IP-address basis. This avoids some of the security implications of
the IP Identification field, but not all. For example, systems
behind a load balancer can still be counted.
Gont Informational PAGE 16
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
3.5.2. Possible Security Improvements
Contrary to common wisdom, the IP Identification field does not need
to be system-wide unique for each packet, but has to be unique for
each {Source Address, Destination Address, Protocol} tuple.
For instance, the TCP specification defines a generic send()
function that takes the IP ID as one of its arguments.
We provide an analysis of the possible security improvements that
could be implemented, based on whether the protocol using the
services of IP is connection-oriented or connection-less.
3.5.2.1. Connection-Oriented Transport Protocols
To avoid the security implications of the information leakage
described above, a pseudo-random number generator (PRNG) could be
used to set the IP Identification field on a {Source Address,
Destination Address} basis (for each connection-oriented transport
protocol).
[RFC 4086] provides advice on the generation of pseudo-random
numbers.
[Klein2007] is a security advisory that describes a weakness in
the pseudo-random number generator (PRNG) employed for the
generation of the IP Identification by a number of operating
systems.
While in theory a pseudo-random number generator could lead to
scenarios in which a given Identification number is used more than
once in the same time span for datagrams that end up getting
fragmented (with the corresponding potential reassembly problems), in
practice, this is unlikely to cause trouble.
By default, most implementations of connection-oriented protocols,
such as TCP, implement some mechanism for avoiding fragmentation
(such as the Path-MTU Discovery mechanism described in [RFC 1191]).
Thus, fragmentation will only take place if a non-RFC-compliant
middle-box that still fragments packets even when the DF bit is set
is placed somewhere along the path that the packets travel to get to
the destination host. Once the sending system is signaled by the
middle-box (by means of an ICMP "fragmentation needed and DF bit set"
error message) that it should reduce the size of the packets it
sends, fragmentation would be avoided. Also, for reassembly problems
to arise, the same Identification value would need to be reused very
frequently, and either strong packet reordering or packet loss would
need to take place.
Gont Informational PAGE 17
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
Nevertheless, regardless of what policy is used for selecting the
Identification field, with the current link speeds fragmentation is
already bad enough (i.e., very likely to lead to fragment reassembly
errors) to rely on it. A mechanism for avoiding fragmentation (such
as [RFC 1191] or [RFC 4821] should be implemented, instead.
3.5.2.2. Connectionless Transport Protocols
Connectionless transport protocols often have these characteristics:
o lack of flow-control mechanisms,
o lack of packet sequencing mechanisms, and/or,
o lack of reliability mechanisms (such as "timeout and retransmit").
This basically means that the scenarios and/or applications for which
connection-less transport protocols are used assume that:
o Applications will be used in environments in which packet
reordering is very unlikely (such as Local Area Networks), as the
transport protocol itself does not provide data sequencing.
o The data transfer rates will be low enough that flow control will
be unnecessary.
o Packet loss is can be tolerated and/or is unlikely.
With these assumptions in mind, the Identification field could still
be set according to a pseudo-random number generator (PRNG).
[RFC 4086] provides advice on the generation of pseudo-random
numbers.
In the event a given Identification number was reused while the first
instance of the same number is still on the network, the first IP
datagram would be reassembled before the fragments of the second IP
datagram get to their destination.
In the event this was not the case, the reassembly of fragments would
result in a corrupt datagram. While some existing work
[Silbersack2005] assumes that this error would be caught by some
upper-layer error detection code, the error detection code in
question (such as UDP's checksum) might not be able to reliably
detect data corruption arising from the replacement of a complete
data block (as is the case in corruption arising from collision of IP
Identification numbers).
Gont Informational PAGE 18
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
In the case of UDP, unfortunately some systems have been known to
not enable the UDP checksum by default. For most applications,
packets containing errors should be dropped by the transport layer
and not delivered to the application. A small number of
applications may benefit from disabling the checksum; for example,
streaming media where it is desired to avoid dropping a complete
sample for a single-bit error, and UDP tunneling applications
where the payload (i.e., the inner packet) is protected by its own
transport checksum or other error detection mechanism.
In general, if IP Identification number collisions become an issue
for the application using the connection-less protocol, the
application designers should consider using a different transport
protocol (which hopefully avoids fragmentation).
It must be noted that an attacker could intentionally exploit
collisions of IP Identification numbers to perform a DoS attack, by
sending forged fragments that would cause the reassembly process to
result in a corrupt datagram that either would be dropped by the
transport protocol or would incorrectly be handed to the
corresponding application. This issue is discussed in detail in
Section 4.1 ("Fragment Reassembly").
3.6. Flags
The IP header contains 3 control bits, two of which are currently
used for the fragmentation and reassembly function.
As described by RFC 791, their meaning is:
o Bit 0: reserved, must be zero (i.e., reserved for future
standardization)
o Bit 1: (DF) 0 = May Fragment, 1 = Don't Fragment
o Bit 2: (MF) 0 = Last Fragment, 1 = More Fragments
The DF bit is usually set to implement the Path-MTU Discovery (PMTUD)
mechanism described in [RFC 1191]. However, it can also be exploited
by an attacker to evade Network Intrusion Detection Systems. An
attacker could send a packet with the DF bit set to a system
monitored by a NIDS, and depending on the Path-MTU to the intended
recipient, the packet might be dropped by some intervening router
(because of being too big to be forwarded without fragmentation),
without the NIDS being aware of it.
Gont Informational PAGE 19
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
+---+
| H |
+---+ Victim host
|
Router A | MTU=1500
|
+---+ +---+ +---+
| R |-----| R |---------| R |
+---+ +---+ +---+
| MTU=17914 Router B
+---+ |
| S |-----+
+---+ |
|
NIDS Sensor |
|
_ ___/---\______ Attacker
/ \_/ \_ +---+
/ Internet |---------| H |
\_ __/ +---+
\__ __ ___/ <------
\___/ \__/ 17914-byte packet
DF bit set
Figure 5: NIDS Evasion by Means of the Internet Protocol DF Bit
In Figure 3, an attacker sends a 17914-byte datagram meant for the
victim host in the same figure. The attacker's packet probably
contains an overlapping IP fragment or an overlapping TCP segment,
aiming at "confusing" the NIDS, as described in [Ptacek1998]. The
packet is screened by the NIDS sensor at the network perimeter, which
probably reassembles IP fragments and TCP segments for the purpose of
assessing the data transferred to and from the monitored systems.
However, as the attacker's packet should transit a link with an MTU
smaller than 17914 bytes (1500 bytes in this example), the router
that encounters that this packet cannot be forwarded without
fragmentation (Router B) discards the packet, and sends an ICMP
"fragmentation needed and DF bit set" error message to the source
host. In this scenario, the NIDS may remain unaware that the
screened packet never reached the intended destination, and thus get
an incorrect picture of the data being transferred to the monitored
systems.
[Shankar2003] introduces a technique named "Active Mapping" that
prevents evasion of a NIDS by acquiring sufficient knowledge about
the network being monitored, to assess which packets will arrive
at the intended recipient, and how they will be interpreted by it.
Gont Informational PAGE 20
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
Some firewalls are known to drop packets that have both the MF (More
Fragments) and the DF (Don't Fragment) bits set. While in principle
such a packet might seem nonsensical, there are a number of reasons
for which non-malicious packets with these two bits set can be found
in a network. First, they may exist as the result of some middle-box
processing a packet that was too large to be forwarded without
fragmentation. Instead of simply dropping the corresponding packet
and sending an ICMP error message to the source host, some middle-
boxes fragment the packet (copying the DF bit to each fragment), and
also send an ICMP error message to the originating system. Second,
some systems (notably Linux) set both the MF and the DF bits to
implement Path-MTU Discovery (PMTUD) for UDP. These scenarios should
be taken into account when configuring firewalls and/or tuning NIDSs.
Section 4.1 contains a discussion of the security implications of the
IP fragment reassembly mechanism.
3.7. Fragment Offset
The Fragment Offset is used for the fragmentation and reassembly of
IP datagrams. It indicates where in the original datagram payload
the payload of the fragment belongs, and is measured in units of
eight bytes. As a consequence, all fragments (except the last one),
have to be aligned on an 8-byte boundary. Therefore, if a packet has
the MF flag set, the following check should be enforced:
(Total Length - IHL * 4) % 8 == 0
If the packet does not pass this check, it should be dropped, and
this event should be logged (e.g., a counter could be incremented
reflecting the packet drop).
Given that Fragment Offset is a 13-bit field, it can hold a value of
up to 8191, which would correspond to an offset 65528 bytes within
the original (non-fragmented) datagram. As such, it is possible for
a fragment to implicitly claim to belong to a datagram larger than
65535 bytes (the maximum size for a legitimate IP datagram). Even
when the fragmentation mechanism would seem to allow fragments that
could reassemble into such large datagrams, the intent of the
specification is to allow for the transmission of datagrams of up to
65535 bytes. Therefore, if a given fragment would reassemble into a
datagram of more than 65535 bytes, the resulting datagram should be
dropped, and this event should be logged (e.g., a counter could be
incremented reflecting the packet drop). To detect such a case, the
following check should be enforced on all packets for which the
Fragment Offset contains a non-zero value:
Gont Informational PAGE 21
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
Fragment Offset * 8 + (Total Length - IHL * 4) + IHL_FF * 4 <= 65535
where IHL_FF is the IHL field of the first fragment (the one with a
Fragment Offset of 0).
If a fragment does not pass this check, it should be dropped.
If IHL_FF is not yet available because the first fragment has not yet
arrived, for a preliminary, less rigid test, IHL_FF == IHL should be
assumed, and the test is simplified to:
Fragment Offset * 8 + Total Length <= 65535
Once the first fragment is received, the full sanity check described
earlier should be applied, if that fragment contains "don't copy"
options.
In the worst-case scenario, an attacker could craft IP fragments such
that the reassembled datagram reassembled into a datagram of 131043
bytes.
Such a datagram would result when the first fragment has a
Fragment Offset of 0 and a Total Length of 65532, and the second
(and last) fragment has a Fragment Offset of 8189 (65512 bytes),
and a Total Length of 65535. Assuming an IHL of 5 (i.e., a header
length of 20 bytes), the reassembled datagram would be 65532 +
(65535 - 20) = 131047 bytes.
Additionally, the IP module should implement all the necessary
measures to be able to handle such illegitimate reassembled
datagrams, so as to avoid them from overflowing the buffer(s) used
for the reassembly function.
[CERT1996c] and [Kenney1996] describe the exploitation of this
issue to perform a DoS attack.
Section 4.1 contains a discussion of the security implications of the
IP fragment reassembly mechanism.
3.8. Time to Live (TTL)
The Time to Live (TTL) field has two functions: to bound the lifetime
of the upper-layer packets (e.g., TCP segments) and to prevent
packets from looping indefinitely in the network.
Originally, this field was meant to indicate the maximum time a
datagram was allowed to remain in the Internet system, in units of
seconds. As every Internet module that processes a datagram must
Gont Informational PAGE 22
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
decrement the TTL by at least one, the original definition of the TTL
field became obsolete, and in practice it is interpreted as a hop
count (see Section 5.3.1 of [RFC 1812]).
Most systems allow the administrator to configure the TTL to be used
for the packets they originate, with the default value usually being
a power of 2, or 255 (e.g., see [Arkin2000]). The recommended value
for the TTL field, as specified by the IANA is 64 [IANA_IP_PARAM].
This value reflects the assumed "diameter" of the Internet, plus a
margin to accommodate its growth.
The TTL field has a number of properties that are interesting from a
security point of view. Given that the default value used for the
TTL is usually either a power of two, or 255, chances are that unless
the originating system has been explicitly tuned to use a non-default
value, if a packet arrives with a TTL of 60, the packet was
originally sent with a TTL of 64. In the same way, if a packet is
received with a TTL of 120, chances are that the original packet had
a TTL of 128.
This discussion assumes there was no protocol scrubber,
transparent proxy, or some other middle-box that overwrites the
TTL field in a non-standard way, between the originating system
and the point of the network in which the packet was received.
Determining the TTL with which a packet was originally sent by the
source system can help to obtain valuable information. Among other
things, it may help in:
o Fingerprinting the originating operating system.
o Fingerprinting the originating physical device.
o Mapping the network topology.
o Locating the source host in the network topology.
o Evading Network Intrusion Detection Systems.
However, it can also be used to perform important functions such as:
o Improving the security of applications that make use of the
Internet Protocol (IP).
o Limiting spread of packets.
Gont Informational PAGE 23
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
3.8.1. Fingerprinting the Operating System in Use by the Source Host
Different operating systems use a different default TTL for the
packets they send. Thus, asserting the TTL with which a packet was
originally sent will help heuristics to reduce the number of possible
operating systems in use by the source host. It should be noted that
since most systems use only a handful of different default values,
the granularity of OS fingerprinting that this technique provides is
negligible. Additionally, these defaults may be configurable
(system-wide or per protocol), and managed systems may employ such
opportunities for operational purposes and to defeat the capability
of fingerprinting heuristics.
3.8.2. Fingerprinting the Physical Device from which the Packets
Originate
When several systems are behind a middle-box such as a NAT or a load
balancer, the TTL may help to count the number of systems behind the
middle-box. If each of the systems behind the middle-box uses a
different default TTL value for the packets it sends, or each system
is located at different distances in the network topology, an
attacker could stimulate responses from the devices being
fingerprinted, and responses that arrive with different TTL values
could be assumed to come from a different devices.
Of course, there are many other (and much more precise) techniques
to fingerprint physical devices. One weakness of this method is
that, while many systems differ in the default TTL value that they
use, there are also many implementations which use the same
default TTL value. Additionally, packets sent by a given device
may take different routes (e.g., due to load sharing or route
changes), and thus a given packet may incorrectly be presumed to
come from a different device, when in fact it just traveled a
different route.
However, these defaults may be configurable (system-wide or per
protocol) and managed systems may employ such opportunities for
operational purposes and to defeat the capability of fingerprinting
heuristics.
3.8.3. Mapping the Network Topology
An originating host may set the TTL field of the packets it sends to
progressively increasing values in order to elicit an ICMP error
message from the routers that decrement the TTL of each packet to
zero, and thereby determine the IP addresses of the routers on the
path to the packet's destination. This procedure has been
traditionally employed by the traceroute tool.
Gont Informational PAGE 24
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
3.8.4. Locating the Source Host in the Network Topology
The TTL field may also be used to locate the source system in the
network topology [Northcutt2000].
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
| A |-----| R |------| R |----| R |-----| R |
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
/ | / \
/ | / \
/ | / +---+
/ +---+ +---+ +---+ | E |
/ | R |----| R |------| R |-- +---+
/ +---+ +---+\ +---+ \
/ / / \ \ \
/ ---- / +---+ \ \+---+
/ / / | F | \ | D |
+---+ +---+ +---+ \ +---|
| R |----------| R |-- \
+---+ +---+ \ \
| \ / \ +---+| +---+
| \ / ----| R |------| R |
| \ / +---+ +---+
+---+ \ +---+ +---+
| B | \| R |----| C |
+---+ +---+ +---+
Figure 6: Tracking a Host by Means of the TTL Field
Consider network topology of Figure 6. Assuming that an attacker
("F" in the figure) is performing some type of attack that requires
forging the Source Address (such as for a TCP-based DoS reflection
attack), and some of the involved hosts are willing to cooperate to
locate the attacking system.
Assuming that:
o All the packets A gets have a TTL of 61.
o All the packets B gets have a TTL of 61.
o All the packets C gets have a TTL of 61.
o All the packets D gets have a TTL of 62.
Gont Informational PAGE 25
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
Based on this information, and assuming that the system's default
value was not overridden, it would be fair to assume that the
original TTL of the packets was 64. With this information, the
number of hops between the attacker and each of the aforementioned
hosts can be calculated.
The attacker is:
o Four hops away from A.
o Four hops away from B.
o Four hops away from C.
o Four hops away from D.
In the network setup of Figure 3, the only system that satisfies all
these conditions is the one marked as the "F".
The scenario described above is for illustration purposes only. In
practice, there are a number of factors that may prevent this
technique from being successfully applied:
o Unless there is a "large" number of cooperating systems, and the
attacker is assumed to be no more than a few hops away from these
systems, the number of "candidate" hosts will usually be too large
for the information to be useful.
o The attacker may be using a non-default TTL value, or, what is
worse, using a pseudo-random value for the TTL of the packets it
sends.
o The packets sent by the attacker may take different routes, as a
result of a change in network topology, load sharing, etc., and
thus may lead to an incorrect analysis.
3.8.5. Evading Network Intrusion Detection Systems
The TTL field can be used to evade Network Intrusion Detection
Systems. Depending on the position of a sensor relative to the
destination host of the examined packet, the NIDS may get a different
picture from that of the intended destination system. As an example,
a sensor may process a packet that will expire before getting to the
destination host. A general countermeasure for this type of attack
is to normalize the traffic that gets to an organizational network.
Examples of such traffic normalization can be found in [Paxson2001].
OpenBSD Packet Filter is an example of a packet filter that includes
TTL-normalization functionality [OpenBSD-PF]
Gont Informational PAGE 26
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
3.8.6. Improving the Security of Applications That Make Use of the
Internet Protocol (IP)
In some scenarios, the TTL field can be also used to improve the
security of an application, by restricting the hosts that can
communicate with the given application [RFC 5082]. For example, there
are applications for which the communicating systems are typically in
the same network segment (i.e., there are no intervening routers).
Such an application is the BGP (Border Gateway Protocol) utilized by
two peer routers (usually on a shared link medium).
If both systems use a TTL of 255 for all the packets they send to
each other, then a check could be enforced to require all packets
meant for the application in question to have a TTL of 255.
As all packets sent by systems that are not in the same network
segment will have a TTL smaller than 255, those packets will not pass
the check enforced by these two cooperating peers. This check
reduces the set of systems that may perform attacks against the
protected application (BGP in this case), thus mitigating the attack
vectors described in [NISCC2004] and [Watson2004].
This same check is enforced for related ICMP error messages, with
the intent of mitigating the attack vectors described in
[NISCC2005] and [RFC 5927].
The TTL field can be used in a similar way in scenarios in which the
cooperating systems are not in the same network segment (i.e., multi-
hop peering). In that case, the following check could be enforced:
TTL >= 255 - DeltaHops
This means that the set of hosts from which packets will be accepted
for the protected application will be reduced to those that are no
more than DeltaHops away. While for obvious reasons the level of
protection will be smaller than in the case of directly connected
peers, the use of the TTL field for protecting multi-hop peering
still reduces the set of hosts that could potentially perform a
number of attacks against the protected application.
This use of the TTL field has been officially documented by the IETF
under the name "Generalized TTL Security Mechanism" (GTSM) in
[RFC 5082].
Gont Informational PAGE 27
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
Some protocol scrubbers enforce a minimum value for the TTL field of
the packets they forward. It must be understood that depending on
the minimum TTL being enforced, and depending on the particular
network setup, the protocol scrubber may actually help attackers to
fool the GTSM, by "raising" the TTL of the attacking packets.
3.8.7. Limiting Spread
The originating host sets the TTL field to a small value (frequently
1, for link-scope services) in order to artificially limit the
(topological) distance the packet is allowed to travel. This is
suggested in Section 4.2.2.9 of RFC 1812 [RFC 1812]. Further
discussion of this technique can be found in RFC 1112 [RFC 1112].
3.9. Protocol
The Protocol field indicates the protocol encapsulated in the
Internet datagram. The Protocol field may not only contain a value
corresponding to a protocol implemented by the system processing the
packet, but also a value corresponding to a protocol not implemented,
or even a value not yet assigned by the IANA [IANA_PROT_NUM].
While in theory there should not be security implications from the
use of any value in the protocol field, there have been security
issues in the past with systems that had problems when handling
packets with some specific protocol numbers [Cisco2003] [CERT2003].
A host (i.e., end-system) that receives an IP packet encapsulating a
Protocol it does not support should drop the corresponding packet,
log the event, and possibly send an ICMP Protocol Unreachable (type
3, code 2) error message.
3.10. Header Checksum
The Header Checksum field is an error-detection mechanism meant to
detect errors in the IP header. While in principle there should not
be security implications arising from this field, it should be noted
that due to non-RFC-compliant implementations, the Header Checksum
might be exploited to detect firewalls and/or evade NIDSs.
[Ed3f2002] describes the exploitation of the TCP checksum for
performing such actions. As there are Internet routers known to not
check the IP Header Checksum, and there might also be middle-boxes
(NATs, firewalls, etc.) not checking the IP checksum allegedly due to
performance reasons, similar malicious activity to the one described
in [Ed3f2002] might be performed with the IP checksum.
Gont Informational PAGE 28
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
3.11. Source Address
The Source Address of an IP datagram identifies the node from which
the packet originated.
Strictly speaking, the Source Address of an IP datagram identifies
the interface of the sending system from which the packet was
sent, (rather than the originating "system"), as in the Internet
Architecture there's no concept of "node address".
Unfortunately, it is trivial to forge the Source Address of an
Internet datagram because of the apparent lack of consistent "egress
filtering" near the edge of the network. This has been exploited in
the past for performing a variety of DoS attacks [NISCC2004]
[RFC 4987] [CERT1996a] [CERT1996b] [CERT1998a] and for impersonating
other systems in scenarios in which authentication was based on the
Source Address of the sending system [daemon91996].
The extent to which these attacks can be successfully performed in
the Internet can be reduced through deployment of ingress/egress
filtering in the Internet routers. [NISCC2006] is a detailed guide
on ingress and egress filtering. [RFC 2827] and [RFC 3704] discuss
ingress filtering. [GIAC2000] discusses egress filtering.
[SpooferProject] measures the Internet's susceptibility to forged
Source Address IP packets.
Even when the obvious field on which to perform checks for
ingress/egress filtering is the Source Address and Destination
Address fields of the IP header, there are other occurrences of IP
addresses on which the same type of checks should be performed.
One example is the IP addresses contained in the payload of ICMP
error messages, as discussed in [RFC 5927] and [Gont2006].
There are a number of sanity checks that should be performed on the
Source Address of an IP datagram. Details can be found in
Section 4.3 ("Addressing").
Additionally, there exist freely available tools that allow
administrators to monitor which IP addresses are used with which MAC
addresses [LBNL2006]. This functionality is also included in many
NIDSs.
It is also very important to understand that authentication should
never rely solely on the Source Address used by the communicating
systems.
Gont Informational PAGE 29
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
3.12. Destination Address
The Destination Address of an IP datagram identifies the destination
host to which the packet is meant to be delivered.
Strictly speaking, the Destination Address of an IP datagram
identifies the interface of the destination network interface,
rather than the destination "system", as in the Internet
Architecture there's no concept of "node address".
There are a number of sanity checks that should be performed on the
Destination Address of an IP datagram. Details can be found in
Section 4.3 ("Addressing").
3.13. Options
According to RFC 791, IP options must be implemented by all IP
modules, both in hosts and gateways (i.e., end-systems and
intermediate-systems). This means that the general rules for
assembling, parsing, and processing of IP options must be
implemented. RFC 791 defines a set of options that "must be
understood", but this set has been updated by RFC 1122 [RFC 1122], RFC
1812 [RFC 1812], and other documents. Section 3.13.2 of this document
describes for each option type the current understanding of the
implementation requirements. IP systems are required to ignore
options they do not implement.
It should be noted that while a number of IP options have been
specified, they are generally only used for troubleshooting
purposes (except for the Router Alert option and the different
Security options).
There are two cases for the format of an option:
o Case 1: A single byte of option-type.
o Case 2: An option-type byte, an option-length byte, and the actual
option-data bytes.
In Case 2, the option-length byte counts the option-type byte and the
option-length byte, as well as the actual option-data bytes.
All current and future options except End of Option List (Type = 0)
and No Operation (Type = 1), are of Class 2.
The option-type has three fields:
o 1 bit: copied flag.
Gont Informational PAGE 30
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
o 2 bits: option class.
o 5 bits: option number.
This format allows for the creation of new options for the extension
of the Internet Protocol (IP) and their transparent treatment on
intermediate-systems that do not "understand" them, under direction
of the first three functional parts.
The copied flag indicates whether this option should be copied to all
fragments in the event the packet carrying it needs to be fragmented:
o 0 = not copied.
o 1 = copied.
The values for the option class are:
o 0 = control.
o 1 = reserved for future use.
o 2 = debugging and measurement.
o 3 = reserved for future use.
Finally, the option number identifies the syntax of the rest of the
option.
[IANA_IP_PARAM] contains the list of the currently assigned IP option
numbers. It should be noted that IP systems are required to ignore
those options they do not implement.
3.13.1. General Issues with IP Options
The following subsections discuss security issues that apply to all
IP options. The proposed checks should be performed in addition to
any option-specific checks proposed in the next sections.
3.13.1.1. Processing Requirements
Router manufacturers tend to do IP option processing on the main
processor, rather than on line cards. Unless special care is taken,
this represents DoS risk, as there is potential for overwhelming the
router with option processing.
To reduce the impact of these packets on the system performance, a
few countermeasures could be implemented:
Gont Informational PAGE 31
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
o Rate-limit the number of packets with IP options that are
processed by the system.
o Enforce a limit on the maximum number of options to be accepted on
a given Internet datagram.
The first check avoids a flow of packets with IP options to overwhelm
the system in question. The second check avoids packets with many IP
options to affect the performance of the system.
3.13.1.2. Processing of the Options by the Upper-Layer Protocol
Section 3.2.1.8 of RFC 1122 [RFC 1122] states that all the IP options
received in IP datagrams must be passed to the transport layer (or to
ICMP processing when the datagram is an ICMP message). Therefore,
care in option processing must be taken not only at the Internet
layer but also in every protocol module that may end up processing
the options included in an IP datagram.
3.13.1.3. General Sanity Checks on IP Options
There are a number of sanity checks that should be performed on IP
options before further option processing is done. They help prevent
a number of potential security problems, including buffer overflows.
When these checks fail, the packet carrying the option should be
dropped, and this event should be logged (e.g., a counter could be
incremented to reflect the packet drop).
RFC 1122 [RFC 1122] recommends to send an ICMP "Parameter Problem"
message to the originating system when a packet is dropped because of
an invalid value in a field, such as the cases discussed in the
following subsections. Sending such a message might help in
debugging some network problems. However, it would also alert
attackers about the system that is dropping packets because of the
invalid values in the protocol fields.
We advice that systems default to sending an ICMP "Parameter Problem"
error message when a packet is dropped because of an invalid value in
a protocol field (e.g., as a result of dropping a packet due to the
sanity checks described in this section). However, we recommend that
systems provide a system-wide toggle that allows an administrator to
override the default behavior so that packets can be silently dropped
when an invalid value in a protocol field is encountered.
Gont Informational PAGE 32
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
Option length
Section 3.2.1.8 of RFC 1122 explicitly states that the IP layer
must not crash as the result of an option length that is outside
the possible range, and mentions that erroneous option lengths
have been observed to put some IP implementations into infinite
loops.
For options that belong to the "Case 2" described in the previous
section, the following check should be performed:
option-length >= 2
The value "2" accounts for the option-type byte and the option-
length byte.
This check prevents, among other things, loops in option
processing that may arise from incorrect option lengths.
Additionally, while the option-length byte of IP options of
"Case 2" allows for an option length of up to 255 bytes, there is
a limit on legitimate option length imposed by the space available
for options in the IP header.
For all options of "Case 2", the following check should be
enforced:
option-offset + option-length <= IHL * 4
Where option-offset is the offset of the first byte of the option
within the IP header, with the first byte of the IP header being
assigned an offset of 0.
This check assures that the option does not claim to extend beyond
the IP header. If the packet does not pass this check, it should
be dropped, and this event should be logged (e.g., a counter could
be incremented to reflect the packet drop).
The aforementioned check is meant to detect forged option-length
values that might make an option overlap with the IP payload.
This would be particularly dangerous for those IP options that
request the processing systems to write information into the
option-data area (such as the Record Route option), as it would
allow the generation of overflows.
Gont Informational PAGE 33
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
Data types
Many IP options use pointer and length fields. Care must be taken
as to the data type used for these fields in the implementation.
For example, if an 8-bit signed data type were used to hold an
8-bit pointer, then, pointer values larger than 128 might
mistakenly be interpreted as negative numbers, and thus might lead
to unpredictable results.
3.13.2. Issues with Specific Options
3.13.2.1. End of Option List (Type=0)
This option is used to indicate the "end of options" in those cases
in which the end of options would not coincide with the end of the
Internet Protocol header. Octets in the IP header following the "End
of Option List" are to be regarded as padding (they should set to 0
by the originator and must to be ignored by receiving nodes).
However, an originating node could alternatively fill the remaining
space in the Internet header with No Operation options (see
Section 3.13.2.2). The End of Option List option allows slightly
more efficient parsing on receiving nodes and should be preferred by
packet originators. All IP systems are required to understand both
encodings.
3.13.2.2. No Operation (Type=1)
The No Operation option is basically meant to allow the sending
system to align subsequent options in, for example, 32-bit
boundaries, but it can also be used at the end of the options (see
Section 3.13.2.1).
With a single exception (see Section 3.13.2.13), this option is the
only IP option defined so far that can occur in multiple instances in
a single IP packet.
This option does not have security implications.
3.13.2.3. Loose Source and Record Route (LSRR) (Type=131)
This option lets the originating system specify a number of
intermediate-systems a packet must pass through to get to the
destination host. Additionally, the route followed by the packet is
recorded in the option. The receiving host (end-system) must use the
reverse of the path contained in the received LSRR option.
Gont Informational PAGE 34
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
The LSSR option can be of help in debugging some network problems.
Some ISP (Internet Service Provider) peering agreements require
support for this option in the routers within the peer of the ISP.
The LSRR option has well-known security implications. Among other
things, the option can be used to:
o Bypass firewall rules
o Reach otherwise unreachable Internet systems
o Establish TCP connections in a stealthy way
o Learn about the topology of a network
o Perform bandwidth-exhaustion attacks
Of these attack vectors, the one that has probably received the least
attention is the use of the LSRR option to perform bandwidth
exhaustion attacks. The LSRR option can be used as an amplification
method for performing bandwidth-exhaustion attacks, as an attacker
could make a packet bounce multiple times between a number of systems
by carefully crafting an LSRR option.
This is the IPv4-version of the IPv6 amplification attack that was
widely publicized in 2007 [Biondi2007]. The only difference is
that the maximum length of the IPv4 header (and hence the LSRR
option) limits the amplification factor when compared to the IPv6
counterpart.
While the LSSR option may be of help in debugging some network
problems, its security implications outweigh any legitimate use.
All systems should, by default, drop IP packets that contain an LSRR
option, and should log this event (e.g., a counter could be
incremented to reflect the packet drop). However, they should
provide a system-wide toggle to enable support for this option for
those scenarios in which this option is required. Such system-wide
toggle should default to "off" (or "disable").
[OpenBSD1998] is a security advisory about an improper
implementation of such a system-wide toggle in 4.4BSD kernels.
Section 3.3.5 of RFC 1122 [RFC 1122] states that a host may be able to
act as an intermediate hop in a source route, forwarding a source-
routed datagram to the next specified hop. We strongly discourage
host software from forwarding source-routed datagrams.
Gont Informational PAGE 35
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
If processing of source-routed datagrams is explicitly enabled in a
system, the following sanity checks should be performed.
RFC 791 states that this option should appear, at most, once in a
given packet. Thus, if a packet contains more than one LSRR option,
it should be dropped, and this event should be logged (e.g., a
counter could be incremented to reflect the packet drop).
Additionally, packets containing a combination of LSRR and SSRR
options should be dropped, and this event should be logged (e.g., a
counter could be incremented to reflect the packet drop).
As all other IP options of "Case 2", the LSSR contains a Length field
that indicates the length of the option. Given the format of the
option, the Length field should be checked to have a minimum value of
three and be 3 (3 + n*4):
LSRR.Length % 4 == 3 && LSRR.Length != 0
If the packet does not pass this check, it should be dropped, and
this event should be logged (e.g., a counter could be incremented to
reflect the packet drop).
The Pointer is relative to this option. Thus, the minimum legal
value is 4. Therefore, the following check should be performed.
LSRR.Pointer >= 4
If the packet does not pass this check, it should be dropped, and
this event should be logged (e.g., a counter could be incremented to
reflect the packet drop). Additionally, the Pointer field should be
a multiple of 4. Consequently, the following check should be
performed:
LSRR.Pointer % 4 == 0
If a packet does not pass this check, it should be dropped, and this
event should be logged (e.g., a counter could be incremented to
reflect the packet drop).
When a system receives an IP packet with the LSRR option passing the
above checks, it should check whether or not the source route is
empty. The option is empty if:
LSRR.Pointer > LSRR.Length
In that case, routing should be based on the Destination Address
field, and no further processing should be done on the LSRR option.
Gont Informational PAGE 36
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
[Microsoft1999] is a security advisory about a vulnerability
arising from improper validation of the LSRR.Pointer field.
If the address in the Destination Address field has been reached, and
the option is not empty, the next address in the source route
replaces the address in the Destination Address field, and the IP
address of the interface that will be used to forward this datagram
is recorded in its place in the LSRR.Data field. Then, the
LSRR.Pointer. is incremented by 4.
Note that the sanity checks for the LSRR.Length and the
LSRR.Pointer fields described above ensure that if the option is
not empty, there will be (4*n) octets in the option. That is,
there will be at least one IP address to read and enough room to
record the IP address of the interface that will be used to
forward this datagram.
The LSRR must be copied on fragmentation. This means that if a
packet that carries the LSRR is fragmented, each of the fragments
will have to go through the list of systems specified in the LSRR
option.
3.13.2.4. Strict Source and Record Route (SSRR) (Type=137)
This option allows the originating system to specify a number of
intermediate-systems a packet must pass through to get to the
destination host. Additionally, the route followed by the packet is
recorded in the option, and the destination host (end-system) must
use the reverse of the path contained in the received SSRR option.
This option is similar to the Loose Source and Record Route (LSRR)
option, with the only difference that in the case of SSRR, the route
specified in the option is the exact route the packet must take
(i.e., no other intervening routers are allowed to be in the route).
The SSSR option can be of help in debugging some network problems.
Some ISP (Internet Service Provider) peering agreements require
support for this option in the routers within the peer of the ISP.
The SSRR option has the same security implications as the LSRR
option. Please refer to Section 3.13.2.3 for a discussion of such
security implications.
As with the LSRR, while the SSSR option may be of help in debugging
some network problems, its security implications outweigh any
legitimate use of it.
Gont Informational PAGE 37
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
All systems should, by default, drop IP packets that contain an SSRR
option, and should log this event (e.g., a counter could be
incremented to reflect the packet drop). However, they should
provide a system-wide toggle to enable support for this option for
those scenarios in which this option is required. Such system-wide
toggle should default to "off" (or "disable").
[OpenBSD1998] is a security advisory about an improper
implementation of such a system-wide toggle in 4.4BSD kernels.
In the event processing of the SSRR option were explicitly enabled,
the same sanity checks described for the LSRR option in
Section 3.13.2.3 should be performed on the SSRR option. Namely,
sanity checks should be performed on the option length (SSRR.Length)
and the pointer field (SSRR.Pointer).
If the packet passes the aforementioned sanity checks, the receiving
system should determine whether the Destination Address of the packet
corresponds to one of its IP addresses. If does not, it should be
dropped, and this event should be logged (e.g., a counter could be
incremented to reflect the packet drop).
Contrary to the IP Loose Source and Record Route (LSRR) option,
the SSRR option does not allow in the route other routers than
those contained in the option. If the system implements the weak
end-system model, it is allowed for the system to receive a packet
destined to any of its IP addresses, on any of its interfaces. If
the system implements the strong end-system model, a packet
destined to it can be received only on the interface that
corresponds to the IP address contained in the Destination Address
field [RFC 1122].
If the packet passes this check, the receiving system should
determine whether the source route is empty or not. The option is
empty if:
SSRR.Pointer > SSRR.Length
In that case, if the address in the destination field has not been
reached, the packet should be dropped, and this event should be
logged (e.g., a counter could be incremented to reflect the packet
drop).
[Microsoft1999] is a security advisory about a vulnerability
arising from improper validation of the SSRR.Pointer field.
Gont Informational PAGE 38
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
If the option is not empty, and the address in the Destination
Address field has been reached, the next address in the source route
replaces the address in the Destination Address field, and the IP
address of the interface that will be used to forward this datagram
is recorded in its place in the source route (SSRR.Data field).
Then, the SSRR.Pointer is incremented by 4.
Note that the sanity checks for the SSRR.Length and the
SSRR.Pointer fields described above ensure that if the option is
not empty, there will be (4*n) octets in the option. That is,
there will be at least one IP address to read, and enough room to
record the IP address of the interface that will be used to
forward this datagram.
The SSRR option must be copied on fragmentation. This means that if
a packet that carries the SSRR is fragmented, each of the fragments
will have to go through the list of systems specified in the SSRR
option.
3.13.2.5. Record Route (Type=7)
This option provides a means to record the route that a given packet
follows.
The option begins with an 8-bit option code, which is equal to 7.
The second byte is the option length, which includes the option-type
byte, the option-length byte, the pointer byte, and the actual
option-data. The third byte is a pointer into the route data,
indicating the first byte of the area in which to store the next
route data. The pointer is relative to the option start.
RFC 791 states that this option should appear, at most, once in a
given packet. Therefore, if a packet has more than one instance of
this option, it should be dropped, and this event should be logged
(e.g., a counter could be incremented to reflect the packet drop).
The same sanity checks performed for the Length field and the Pointer
field of the LSRR and the SSRR options should be performed on the
Length field (RR.Length) and the Pointer field (RR.Pointer) of the RR
option. As with the LSRR and SSRR options, if the packet does not
pass these checks it should be dropped, and this event should be
logged (e.g., a counter could be incremented to reflect the packet
drop).
When a system receives an IP packet with the Record Route option that
passes the above checks, it should check whether there is space in
the option to store route information. The option is full if:
Gont Informational PAGE 39
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
RR.Pointer > RR.Length
If the option is full, the datagram should be forwarded without
further processing of this option.
If the option is not full (i.e., RR.Pointer <= RR.Length), the IP
address of the interface that will be used to forward this datagram
should be recorded into the area pointed to by the RR.Pointer, and
RR.Pointer should then incremented by 4.
This option is not copied on fragmentation, and thus appears in the
first fragment only. If a fragment other than the one with offset 0
contains the Record Route option, it should be dropped, and this
event should be logged (e.g., a counter could be incremented to
reflect the packet drop).
The Record Route option can be exploited to learn about the topology
of a network. However, the limited space in the IP header limits the
usefulness of this option for that purpose if the target network is
several hops away.
3.13.2.6. Stream Identifier (Type=136)
The Stream Identifier option originally provided a means for the
16-bit SATNET stream Identifier to be carried through networks that
did not support the stream concept.
However, as stated by Section 4.2.2.1 of RFC 1812 [RFC 1812], this
option is obsolete. Therefore, it must be ignored by the processing
systems.
In the case of legacy systems still using this option, the length
field of the option should be checked to be 4. If the option does
not pass this check, it should be dropped, and this event should be
logged (e.g., a counter could be incremented to reflect the packet
drop).
RFC 791 states that this option appears at most once in a given
datagram. Therefore, if a packet contains more than one instance of
this option, it should be dropped, and this event should be logged
(e.g., a counter could be incremented to reflect the packet drop).
3.13.2.7. Internet Timestamp (Type=68)
This option provides a means for recording the time at which each
system processed this datagram. The timestamp option has a number of
security implications. Among them are the following:
Gont Informational PAGE 40
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
o It allows an attacker to obtain the current time of the systems
that process the packet, which the attacker may find useful in a
number of scenarios.
o It may be used to map the network topology, in a similar way to
the IP Record Route option.
o It may be used to fingerprint the operating system in use by a
system processing the datagram.
o It may be used to fingerprint physical devices by analyzing the
clock skew.
Therefore, by default, the timestamp option should be ignored.
For those systems that have been explicitly configured to honor this
option, the rest of this subsection describes some sanity checks that
should be enforced on the option before further processing.
The option begins with an option-type byte, which must be equal to
68. The second byte is the option-length, which includes the option-
type byte, the option-length byte, the pointer, and the overflow/flag
byte. The minimum legal value for the option-length byte is 4, which
corresponds to an Internet Timestamp option that is empty (no space
to store timestamps). Therefore, upon receipt of a packet that
contains an Internet Timestamp option, the following check should be
performed:
IT.Length >= 4
If the packet does not pass this check, it should be dropped, and
this event should be logged (e.g., a counter could be incremented to
reflect the packet drop).
The Pointer is an index within this option, counting the option type
octet as octet #1. It points to the first byte of the area in which
the next timestamp data should be stored and thus, the minimum legal
value is 5. Since the only change of the Pointer allowed by RFC 791
is incrementing it by 4 or 8, the following checks should be
performed on the Internet Timestamp option, depending on the Flag
value (see below).
If IT.Flag is equal to 0, the following check should be performed:
IT.Pointer %4 == 1 && IT.Pointer != 1
Gont Informational PAGE 41
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
If the packet does not pass this check, it should be dropped, and
this event should be logged (e.g., a counter could be incremented to
reflect the packet drop).
Otherwise, the following sanity check should be performed on the
option:
IT.Pointer % 8 == 5
If the packet does not pass this check, it should be dropped, and
this event should be logged (e.g., a counter could be incremented to
reflect the packet drop).
The flag field has three possible legal values:
o 0: Record time stamps only, stored in consecutive 32-bit words.
o 1: Record each timestamp preceded with the Internet address of the
registering entity.
o 3: The internet address fields of the option are pre-specified.
An IP module only registers its timestamp if it matches its own
address with the next specified Internet address.
Therefore the following check should be performed:
IT.Flag == 0 || IT.Flag == 1 || IT.Flag == 3
If the packet does not pass this check, it should be dropped, and
this event should be logged (e.g., a counter could be incremented to
reflect the packet drop).
The timestamp field is a right-justified 32-bit timestamp in
milliseconds since UTC. If the time is not available in
milliseconds, or cannot be provided with respect to UTC, then any
time may be inserted as a timestamp, provided the high-order bit of
the timestamp is set, to indicate this non-standard value.
According to RFC 791, the initial contents of the timestamp area must
be initialized to zero, or Internet address/zero pairs. However,
Internet systems should be able to handle non-zero values, possibly
discarding the offending datagram.
When an Internet system receives a packet with an Internet Timestamp
option, it decides whether it should record its timestamp in the
option. If it determines that it should, it should then determine
whether the timestamp data area is full, by means of the following
check:
Gont Informational PAGE 42
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
IT.Pointer > IT.Length
If this condition is true, the timestamp data area is full. If not,
there is room in the timestamp data area.
If the timestamp data area is full, the overflow byte should be
incremented, and the packet should be forwarded without inserting the
timestamp. If the overflow byte itself overflows, the packet should
be dropped, and this event should be logged (e.g., a counter could be
incremented to reflect the packet drop).
If the timestamp data area is not full, then processing continues as
follows (note that the above checks on IT.Pointer ensure that there
is room for another entry in the option):
o If IT.Flag is 0, then the system's 32-bit timestamp is stored into
the area pointed to by the pointer byte and the pointer byte is
incremented by 4.
o If IT.Flag is 1, then the IP address of the system is stored into
the area pointed to by the pointer byte, followed by the 32-bit
system timestamp, and the pointer byte is incremented by 8.
o Otherwise (IT.Flag is 3), if the IP address in the first 4 bytes
pointed to by IT.Pointer matches one of the IP addresses assigned
to an interface of the system, then the system's timestamp is
stored into the area pointed to by IT.Pointer + 4, and the pointer
byte is incremented by 8.
[Kohno2005] describes a technique for fingerprinting devices by
measuring the clock skew. It exploits, among other things, the
timestamps that can be obtained by means of the ICMP timestamp
request messages [RFC 791]. However, the same fingerprinting method
could be implemented with the aid of the Internet Timestamp option.
3.13.2.8. Router Alert (Type=148)
The Router Alert option is defined in RFC 2113 [RFC 2113] and later
updates to it have been clarified by RFC 5350 [RFC 5350]. It contains
a 16-bit Value governed by an IANA registry (see [RFC 5350]). The
Router Alert option has the semantic "routers should examine this
packet more closely, if they participate in the functionality denoted
by the Value of the option".
According to the syntax of the option as defined in RFC 2113, the
following check should be enforced, if the router supports this
option:
Gont Informational PAGE 43
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
RA.Length == 4
If the packet does not pass this check, it should be dropped, and
this event should be logged (e.g., a counter could be incremented to
reflect the packet drop).
A packet that contains a Router Alert option with an option value
corresponding to functionality supported by an active module in the
router will not go through the router's fast-path but will be
processed in the slow path of the router, handing it over for closer
inspection to the modules that has registered the matching option
value. Therefore, this option may impact the performance of the
systems that handle the packet carrying it.
[ROUTER-ALERT] analyzes the security implications of the Router
Alert option, and identifies controlled environments in which the
Router Alert option can be used safely.
As explained in RFC 2113 [RFC 2113], hosts should ignore this option.
3.13.2.9. Probe MTU (Type=11) (Obsolete)
This option was defined in RFC 1063 [RFC 1063] and originally provided
a mechanism to discover the Path-MTU.
This option is obsolete, and therefore any packet that is received
containing this option should be dropped, and this event should be
logged (e.g., a counter could be incremented to reflect the packet
drop).
3.13.2.10. Reply MTU (Type=12) (Obsolete)
This option is defined in RFC 1063 [RFC 1063], and originally provided
a mechanism to discover the Path-MTU.
This option is obsolete, and therefore any packet that is received
containing this option should be dropped, and this event should be
logged (e.g., a counter could be incremented to reflect the packet
drop).
3.13.2.11. Traceroute (Type=82)
This option is defined in RFC 1393 [RFC 1393], and originally provided
a mechanism to trace the path to a host.
Gont Informational PAGE 44
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
The Traceroute option was specified as "experimental", and it was
never deployed on the public Internet. Therefore, any packet that is
received containing this option should be dropped, and this event
should be logged (e.g., a counter could be incremented to reflect the
packet drop).
3.13.2.12. Department of Defense (DoD) Basic Security Option (Type=130)
This option is used by Multi-Level-Secure (MLS) end-systems and
intermediate-systems in specific environments to [RFC 1108]:
o Transmit from source to destination in a network standard
representation the common security labels required by computer
security models,
o Validate the datagram as appropriate for transmission from the
source and delivery to the destination, and
o Ensure that the route taken by the datagram is protected to the
level required by all protection authorities indicated on the
datagram.
It is specified by RFC 1108 [RFC 1108] (which obsoletes RFC 1038
[RFC 1038]).
RFC 791 [RFC 791] defined the "Security Option" (Type=130), which
used the same option type as the DoD Basic Security option
discussed in this section. The "Security Option" specified in RFC
791 is considered obsolete by Section 3.2.1.8 of RFC 1122, and
therefore the discussion in this section is focused on the DoD
Basic Security option specified by RFC 1108 [RFC 1108].
Section 4.2.2.1 of RFC 1812 states that routers "SHOULD implement
this option".
The DoD Basic Security option is currently implemented in a number of
operating systems (e.g., [IRIX2008], [SELinux2009], [Solaris2007],
and [Cisco2008]), and deployed in a number of high-security networks.
Systems that belong to networks in which this option is in use should
process the DoD Basic Security option contained in each packet as
specified in [RFC 1108].
RFC 1108 states that the option should appear at most once in a
datagram. Therefore, if more than one DoD Basic Security option
(BSO) appears in a given datagram, the corresponding datagram should
be dropped, and this event should be logged (e.g., a counter could be
incremented to reflect the packet drop).
Gont Informational PAGE 45
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
RFC 1108 states that the option Length is variable, with a minimum
option Length of 3 bytes. Therefore, the following check should be
performed:
BSO.Length >= 3
If the packet does not pass this check, it should be dropped, and
this event should be logged (e.g., a counter could be incremented to
reflect the packet drop).
Current deployments of the security options described in this
section and the two subsequent sections have motivated the
specification of a "Common Architecture Label IPv6 Security Option
(CALIPSO)" for the IPv6 protocol [RFC 5570].
3.13.2.13. DoD Extended Security Option (Type=133)
This option permits additional security labeling information, beyond
that present in the Basic Security option (Section 3.13.2.13), to be
supplied in an IP datagram to meet the needs of registered
authorities. It is specified by RFC 1108 [RFC 1108].
This option may be present only in conjunction with the DoD Basic
Security option. Therefore, if a packet contains a DoD Extended
Security option (ESO), but does not contain a DoD Basic Security
option, it should be dropped, and this event should be logged (e.g.,
a counter could be incremented to reflect the packet drop). It
should be noted that, unlike the DoD Basic Security option, this
option may appear multiple times in a single IP header.
Systems that belong to networks in which this option is in use,
should process the DoD Extended Security option contained in each
packet as specified in RFC 1108 [RFC 1108].
RFC 1108 states that the option Length is variable, with a minimum
option Length of 3 bytes. Therefore, the following check should be
performed:
ESO.Length >= 3
If the packet does not pass this check, it should be dropped, and
this event should be logged (e.g., a counter could be incremented to
reflect the packet drop).
Gont Informational PAGE 46
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
3.13.2.14. Commercial IP Security Option (CIPSO) (Type=134)
This option was proposed by the Trusted Systems Interoperability
Group (TSIG), with the intent of meeting trusted networking
requirements for the commercial trusted systems market place. It is
specified in [CIPSO1992] and [FIPS1994].
The TSIG proposal was taken to the Commercial Internet Security
Option (CIPSO) Working Group of the IETF [CIPSOWG1994], and an
Internet-Draft was produced [CIPSO1992]. The Internet-Draft was
never published as an RFC, but the proposal was later standardized
by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
as "Federal Information Processing Standard Publication 188"
[FIPS1994].
It is currently implemented in a number of operating systems (e.g.,
IRIX [IRIX2008], Security-Enhanced Linux [SELinux2009], and Solaris
[Solaris2007]), and deployed in a number of high-security networks.
[Zakrzewski2002] and [Haddad2004] provide an overview of a Linux
implementation.
Systems that belong to networks in which this option is in use should
process the CIPSO option contained in each packet as specified in
[CIPSO1992].
According to the option syntax specified in [CIPSO1992], the
following validation check should be performed:
CIPSO.Length >= 6
If a packet does not pass this check, it should be dropped, and this
event should be logged (e.g., a counter could be incremented to
reflect the packet drop).
3.13.2.15. Sender Directed Multi-Destination Delivery (Type=149)
This option is defined in RFC 1770 [RFC 1770] and originally provided
unreliable UDP delivery to a set of addresses included in the option.
This option is obsolete. If a received packet contains this option,
it should be dropped, and this event should be logged (e.g., a
counter could be incremented to reflect the packet drop).
Gont Informational PAGE 47
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
4. Internet Protocol Mechanisms
4.1. Fragment Reassembly
To accommodate networks with different Maximum Transmission Units
(MTUs), the Internet Protocol provides a mechanism for the
fragmentation of IP packets by end-systems (hosts) and/or
intermediate-systems (routers). Reassembly of fragments is performed
only by the end-systems.
[Cerf1974] provides the rationale for why packet reassembly is not
performed by intermediate-systems.
During the last few decades, IP fragmentation and reassembly has been
exploited in a number of ways, to perform actions such as evading
NIDSs, bypassing firewall rules, and performing DoS attacks.
[Bendi1998] and [Humble1998] are examples of the exploitation of
these issues for performing DoS attacks. [CERT1997] and
[CERT1998b] document these issues. [Anderson2001] is a survey of
fragmentation attacks. [US-CERT2001] is an example of the
exploitation of IP fragmentation to bypass firewall rules.
[CERT1999] describes the implementation of fragmentation attacks
in Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) attack tools.
The problem with IP fragment reassembly basically has to do with the
complexity of the function, in a number of aspects:
o Fragment reassembly is a stateful operation for a stateless
protocol (IP). The IP module at the host performing the
reassembly function must allocate memory buffers both for
temporarily storing the received fragments and to perform the
reassembly function. Attackers can exploit this fact to exhaust
memory buffers at the system performing the fragment reassembly.
o The fragmentation and reassembly mechanisms were designed at a
time in which the available bandwidths were very different from
the bandwidths available nowadays. With the current available
bandwidths, a number of interoperability problems may arise, and
these issues may be intentionally exploited by attackers to
perform DoS attacks.
o Fragment reassembly must usually be performed without any
knowledge of the properties of the path the fragments follow.
Without this information, hosts cannot make any educated guess on
how long they should wait for missing fragments to arrive.
Gont Informational PAGE 48
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
o The fragment reassembly algorithm, as described by the IETF
specifications, is ambiguous, and allows for a number of
interpretations, each of which has found place in different TCP/IP
stack implementations.
o The reassembly process is somewhat complex. Fragments may arrive
out of order, duplicated, overlapping each other, etc. This
complexity has lead to numerous bugs in different implementations
of the IP protocol.
4.1.1. Security Implications of Fragment Reassembly
4.1.1.1. Problems Related to Memory Allocation
When an IP datagram is received by an end-system, it will be
temporarily stored in system memory, until the IP module processes it
and hands it to the protocol machine that corresponds to the
encapsulated protocol.
In the case of fragmented IP packets, while the IP module may perform
preliminary processing of the IP header (such as checking the header
for errors and processing IP options), fragments must be kept in
system buffers until all fragments are received and are reassembled
into a complete Internet datagram.
As mentioned above, because the Internet layer will not usually have
information about the characteristics of the path between the system
and the remote host, no educated guess can be made on the amount of
time that should be waited for the other fragments to arrive.
Therefore, the specifications recommend to wait for a period of time
that is acceptable for virtually all the possible network scenarios
in which the protocols might operate. After that time has elapsed,
all the received fragments for the corresponding incomplete packet
are discarded.
The original IP Specification, RFC 791 [RFC 791], states that
systems should wait for at least 15 seconds for the missing
fragments to arrive. Systems that follow the "Example Reassembly
Procedure" described in Section 3.2 of RFC 791 may end up using a
reassembly timer of up to 4.25 minutes, with a minimum of 15
seconds. Section 3.3.2 ("Reassembly") of RFC 1122 corrected this
advice, stating that the reassembly timeout should be a fixed
value between 60 and 120 seconds.
Gont Informational PAGE 49
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
However, the longer the system waits for the missing fragments to
arrive, the longer the corresponding system resources must be tied to
the corresponding packet. The amount of system memory is finite, and
even with today's systems, it can still be considered a scarce
resource.
An attacker could take advantage of the uncomfortable situation the
system performing fragment reassembly is in, by sending forged
fragments that will never reassemble into a complete datagram. That
is, an attacker would send many different fragments, with different
IP IDs, without ever sending all the necessary fragments that would
be needed to reassemble them into a full IP datagram. For each of
the fragments, the IP module would allocate resources and tie them to
the corresponding fragment, until the reassembly timer for the
corresponding packet expires.
There are some implementation strategies which could increase the
impact of this attack. For example, upon receipt of a fragment, some
systems allocate a memory buffer that will be large enough to
reassemble the whole datagram. While this might be beneficial in
legitimate cases, this just amplifies the impact of the possible
attacks, as a single small fragment could tie up memory buffers for
the size of an extremely large (and unlikely) datagram. The
implementation strategy suggested in RFC 815 [RFC 815] leads to such
an implementation.
The impact of the aforementioned attack may vary depending on some
specific implementation details:
o If the system does not enforce limits on the amount of memory that
can be allocated by the IP module, then an attacker could tie all
system memory to fragments, at which point the system would become
unusable, perhaps crashing.
o If the system enforces limits on the amount of memory that can be
allocated by the IP module as a whole, then, when this limit is
reached, all further IP packets that arrive would be discarded,
until some fragments time out and free memory is available again.
o If the system enforces limits on the amount memory that can be
allocated for the reassembly of fragments, then, when this limit
is reached, all further fragments that arrive would be discarded,
until some fragment(s) time out and free memory is available
again.
Gont Informational PAGE 50
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
4.1.1.2. Problems That Arise from the Length of the IP Identification
Field
The Internet Protocols are currently being used in environments that
are quite different from the ones in which they were conceived. For
instance, the availability of bandwidth at the time the Internet
Protocol was designed was completely different from the availability
of bandwidth in today's networks.
The Identification field is a 16-bit field that is used for the
fragmentation and reassembly function. In the event a datagram gets
fragmented, all the corresponding fragments will share the same
{Source Address, Destination Address, Protocol, Identification
number} four-tuple. Thus, the system receiving the fragments will be
able to uniquely identify them as fragments that correspond to the
same IP datagram. At a given point in time, there must be at most
only one packet in the network with a given four-tuple. If not, an
Identification number "collision" might occur, and the receiving
system might end up "mixing" fragments that correspond to different
IP datagrams which simply reused the same Identification number.
For example, sending over a 1 Gbit/s path a continuous stream of
(UDP) packets of roughly 1 kb size that all get fragmented into
two equally sized fragments of 576 octets each (minimum reassembly
buffer size) would repeat the IP Identification values within less
than 0.65 seconds (assuming roughly 10% link layer overhead); with
shorter packets that still get fragmented, this figure could
easily drop below 0.4 seconds. With a single IP packet dropped in
this short time frame, packets would start to be reassembled
wrongly and continuously once in such interval until an error
detection and recovery algorithm at an upper layer lets the
application back out.
For each group of fragments whose Identification numbers "collide",
the fragment reassembly will lead to corrupted packets. The IP
payload of the reassembled datagram will be handed to the
corresponding upper-layer protocol, where the error will (hopefully)
be detected by some error detecting code (such as the TCP checksum)
and the packet will be discarded.
An attacker could exploit this fact to intentionally cause a system
to discard all or part of the fragmented traffic it gets, thus
performing a DoS attack. Such an attacker would simply establish a
flow of fragments with different IP Identification numbers, to trash
all or part of the IP Identification space. As a result, the
receiving system would use the attacker's fragments for the
reassembly of legitimate datagrams, leading to corrupted packets
which would later (and hopefully) get dropped.
Gont Informational PAGE 51
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
In most cases, use of a long fragment timeout will benefit the
attacker, as forged fragments will keep the IP Identification space
trashed for a longer period of time.
4.1.1.3. Problems That Arise from the Complexity of the Reassembly
Algorithm
As IP packets can be duplicated by the network, and each packet may
take a different path to get to the destination host, fragments may
arrive not only out of order and/or duplicated but also overlapping.
This means that the reassembly process can be somewhat complex, with
the corresponding implementation being not specifically trivial.
[Shannon2001] analyzes the causes and attributes of fragment traffic
measured in several types of WANs.
During the years, a number of attacks have exploited bugs in the
reassembly function of several operating systems, producing buffer
overflows that have led, in most cases, to a crash of the attacked
system.
4.1.1.4. Problems That Arise from the Ambiguity of the Reassembly
Process
Network Intrusion Detection Systems (NIDSs) typically monitor the
traffic on a given network with the intent of identifying traffic
patterns that might indicate network intrusions.
In the presence of IP fragments, in order to detect illegitimate
activity at the transport or application layers (i.e., any protocol
layer above the network layer), a NIDS must perform IP fragment
reassembly.
In order to correctly assess the traffic, the result of the
reassembly function performed by the NIDS should be the same as that
of the reassembly function performed by the intended recipient of the
packets.
However, a number of factors make the result of the reassembly
process ambiguous:
o The IETF specifications are ambiguous as to what should be done in
the event overlapping fragments were received. Thus, in the
presence of overlapping data, the system performing the reassembly
function is free to honor either the first set of data received,
the latest copy received, or any other copy received in between.
Gont Informational PAGE 52
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
o As the specifications do not enforce any specific fragment timeout
value, different systems may choose different values for the
fragment timeout. This means that given a set of fragments
received at some specified time intervals, some systems will
reassemble the fragments into a full datagram, while others may
timeout the fragments and therefore drop them.
o As mentioned before, as the fragment buffers get full, a DoS
condition will occur unless some action is taken. Many systems
flush part of the fragment buffers when some threshold is reached.
Thus, depending on fragment load, timing issues, and flushing
policy, a NIDS may get incorrect assumptions about how (and if)
fragments are being reassembled by their intended recipient.
As originally discussed by [Ptacek1998], these issues can be
exploited by attackers to evade intrusion detection systems.
There exist freely available tools to forcefully fragment IP
datagrams so as to help evade Intrusion Detection Systems. Frag
router [Song1999] is an example of such a tool; it allows an attacker
to perform all the evasion techniques described in [Ptacek1998].
Ftester [Barisani2006] is a tool that helps to audit systems
regarding fragmentation issues.
4.1.1.5. Problems That Arise from the Size of the IP Fragments
One approach to fragment filtering involves keeping track of the
results of applying filter rules to the first fragment (i.e., the
fragment with a Fragment Offset of 0), and applying them to
subsequent fragments of the same packet. The filtering module would
maintain a list of packets indexed by the Source Address, Destination
Address, Protocol, and Identification number. When the initial
fragment is seen, if the MF bit is set, a list item would be
allocated to hold the result of filter access checks. When packets
with a non-zero Fragment Offset come in, look up the list element
with a matching Source Address/Destination Address/Protocol/
Identification and apply the stored result (pass or block). When a
fragment with a zero MF bit is seen, free the list element.
Unfortunately, the rules of this type of packet filter can usually be
bypassed. [RFC 1858] describes the details of the involved technique.
4.1.2. Possible Security Improvements
4.1.2.1. Memory Allocation for Fragment Reassembly
A design choice usually has to be made as to how to allocate memory
to reassemble the fragments of a given packet. There are basically
two options:
Gont Informational PAGE 53
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
o Upon receipt of the first fragment, allocate a buffer that will be
large enough to concatenate the payload of each fragment.
o Upon receipt of the first fragment, create the first node of a
linked list to which each of the following fragments will be
linked. When all fragments have been received, copy the IP
payload of each of the fragments (in the correct order) to a
separate buffer that will be handed to the protocol being
encapsulated in the IP payload.
While the first of the choices might seem to be the most
straightforward, it implies that even when a single small fragment of
a given packet is received, the amount of memory that will be
allocated for that fragment will account for the size of the complete
IP datagram, thus using more system resources than what is actually
needed.
Furthermore, the only situation in which the actual size of the whole
datagram will be known is when the last fragment of the packet is
received first, as that is the only packet from which the total size
of the IP datagram can be asserted. Otherwise, memory should be
allocated for the largest possible packet size (65535 bytes).
The IP module should also enforce a limit on the amount of memory
that can be allocated for IP fragments, as well as a limit on the
number of fragments that at any time will be allowed in the system.
This will basically limit the resources spent on the reassembly
process, and prevent an attacker from trashing the whole system
memory.
Furthermore, the IP module should keep a different buffer for IP
fragments than for complete IP datagrams. This will basically
separate the effects of fragment attacks on non-fragmented traffic.
Most TCP/IP implementations, such as that in Linux and those in BSD-
derived systems, already implement this.
[Jones2002] analyzes the amount of memory that may be needed for the
fragment reassembly buffer depending on a number of network
characteristics.
4.1.2.2. Flushing the Fragment Buffer
In the case of those attacks that aim to consume the memory buffers
used for fragments, and those that aim to cause a collision of IP
Identification numbers, there are a number of countermeasures that
can be implemented.
Gont Informational PAGE 54
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
Even with these countermeasures in place, there is still the issue of
what to do when the buffer pool used for IP fragments gets full.
Basically, if the fragment buffer is full, no instance of
communication that relies on fragmentation will be able to progress.
Unfortunately, there are not many options for reacting to this
situation. If nothing is done, all the instances of communication
that rely on fragmentation will experience a denial of service.
Thus, the only thing that can be done is flush all or part of the
fragment buffer, on the premise that legitimate traffic will be able
to make use of the freed buffer space to allow communication flows to
progress.
There are a number of factors that should be taken into consideration
when flushing the fragment buffers. First, if a fragment of a given
packet (i.e., fragment with a given Identification number) is
flushed, all the other fragments that correspond to the same datagram
should be flushed. As in order for a packet to be reassembled all of
its fragments must be received by the system performing the
reassembly function, flushing only a subset of the fragments of a
given packet would keep the corresponding buffers tied to fragments
that would never reassemble into a complete datagram. Additionally,
care must be taken so that, in the event that subsequent buffer
flushes need to be performed, it is not always the same set of
fragments that get dropped, as such a behavior would probably cause a
selective DoS to the traffic flows to which that set of fragments
belongs.
Many TCP/IP implementations define a threshold for the number of
fragments that, when reached, triggers a fragment-buffer flush. Some
systems flush 1/2 of the fragment buffer when the threshold is
reached. As mentioned before, the idea of flushing the buffer is to
create some free space in the fragment buffer, on the premise that
this will allow for new and legitimate fragments to be processed by
the IP module, thus letting communication survive the overwhelming
situation. On the other hand, the idea of flushing a somewhat large
portion of the buffer is to avoid flushing always the same set of
packets.
4.1.2.3. A More Selective Fragment Buffer Flushing Strategy
One of the difficulties in implementing countermeasures for the
fragmentation attacks described throughout Section 4.1 is that it is
difficult to perform validation checks on the received fragments.
For instance, the fragment on which validity checks could be
performed, the first fragment, may be not the first fragment to
arrive at the destination host.
Gont Informational PAGE 55
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
Fragments cannot only arrive out of order because of packet
reordering performed by the network, but also because the system (or
systems) that fragmented the IP datagram may indeed transmit the
fragments out of order. A notable example of this is the Linux
TCP/IP stack, which transmits the fragments in reverse order.
This means that we cannot enforce checks on the fragments for which
we allocate reassembly resources, as the first fragment we receive
for a given packet may be some other fragment than the first one (the
one with an Fragment Offset of 0).
However, at the point in which we decide to free some space in the
fragment buffer, some refinements can be done to the flushing policy.
The first thing we would like to do is to stop different types of
traffic from interfering with each other. This means, in principle,
that we do not want fragmented UDP traffic to interfere with
fragmented TCP traffic. In order to implement this traffic
separation for the different protocols, a different fragment buffer
pool would be needed, in principle, for each of the 256 different
protocols that can be encapsulated in an IP datagram.
We believe a trade-off is to implement two separate fragment buffers:
one for IP datagrams that encapsulate IPsec packets and another for
the rest of the traffic. This basically means that traffic not
protected by IPsec will not interfere with those flows of
communication that are being protected by IPsec.
The processing of each of these two different fragment buffer pools
would be completely independent from each other. In the case of the
IPsec fragment buffer pool, when the buffers needs to be flushed, the
following refined policy could be applied:
o First, for each packet for which the IPsec header has been
received, check that the Security Parameters Index (SPI) field of
the IPsec header corresponds to an existing IPsec Security
Association (SA), and probably also check that the IPsec sequence
number is valid. If the check fails, drop all the fragments that
correspond to this packet.
o Second, if still more fragment buffers need to be flushed, drop
all the fragments that correspond to packets for which the full
IPsec header has not yet been received. The number of packets for
which this flushing is performed depends on the amount of free
space that needs to be created.
o Third, if after flushing packets with invalid IPsec information
(First step), and packets on which validation checks could not be
performed (Second step), there is still not enough space in the
Gont Informational PAGE 56
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
fragment buffer, drop all the fragments that correspond to packets
that passed the checks of the first step, until the necessary free
space is created.
The rationale behind this policy is that, at the point of flushing
fragment buffers, we prefer to keep those packets on which we could
successfully perform a number of validation checks, over those
packets on which those checks failed, or the checks could not even be
performed.
By checking both the IPsec SPI and the IPsec sequence number, it is
virtually impossible for an attacker that is off-path to perform a
DoS attack to communication flows being protected by IPsec.
Unfortunately, some IP implementations (such as that in Linux
[Linux]), when performing fragmentation, send the corresponding
fragments in reverse order. In such cases, at the point of flushing
the fragment buffer, legitimate fragments will receive the same
treatment as the possible forged fragments.
This refined flushing policy provides an increased level of
protection against this type of resource exhaustion attack, while not
making the situation of out-of-order IPsec-secured traffic worse than
with the simplified flushing policy described in the previous
section.
4.1.2.4. Reducing the Fragment Timeout
RFC 1122 [RFC 1122] states that the reassembly timeout should be a
fixed value between 60 and 120 seconds. The rationale behind these
long timeout values is that they should accommodate any path
characteristics, such as long-delay paths. However, it must be noted
that this timer is really measuring inter-fragment delays, or, more
specifically, fragment jitter.
If all fragments take paths of similar characteristics, the inter-
fragment delay will usually be, at most, a few seconds.
Nevertheless, even if fragments take different paths of different
characteristics, the recommended 60 to 120 seconds are, in practice,
excessive.
Some systems have already reduced the fragment timeout to 30 seconds
[Linux]. The fragment timeout could probably be further reduced to
approximately 15 seconds; although further research on this issue is
necessary.
Gont Informational PAGE 57
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
It should be noted that in network scenarios of long-delay and high-
bandwidth (usually referred to as "Long-Fat Networks"), using a long
fragment timeout would likely increase the probability of collision
of IP ID numbers. Therefore, in such scenarios it is highly
desirable to avoid the use of fragmentation with techniques such as
PMTUD [RFC 1191] or PLPMTUD [RFC 4821].
4.1.2.5. Countermeasure for Some NIDS Evasion Techniques
[Shankar2003] introduces a technique named "Active Mapping" that
prevents evasion of a NIDS by acquiring sufficient knowledge about
the network being monitored, to assess which packets will arrive at
the intended recipient, and how they will be interpreted by it.
[Novak2005] describes some techniques that are applied by the Snort
[Snort] NIDS to avoid evasion.
4.1.2.6. Countermeasure for Firewall-Rules Bypassing
One of the classical techniques to bypass firewall rules involves
sending packets in which the header of the encapsulated protocol is
fragmented. Even when it would be legal (as far as the IETF
specifications are concerned) to receive such a packets, the MTUs of
the network technologies used in practice are not that small to
require the header of the encapsulated protocol to be fragmented
(e.g., see [RFC 2544]). Therefore, the system performing reassembly
should drop all packets which fragment the upper-layer protocol
header, and this event should be logged (e.g., a counter could be
incremented to reflect the packet drop).
Additionally, given that many middle-boxes such as firewalls create
state according to the contents of the first fragment of a given
packet, it is best that, in the event an end-system receives
overlapping fragments, it honors the information contained in the
fragment that was received first.
RFC 1858 [RFC 1858] describes the abuse of IP fragmentation to bypass
firewall rules. RFC 3128 [RFC 3128] corrects some errors in RFC 1858.
4.2. Forwarding
4.2.1. Precedence-Ordered Queue Service
Section 5.3.3.1 of RFC 1812 [RFC 1812] states that routers should
implement precedence-ordered queue service. This means that when a
packet is selected for output on a (logical) link, the packet of
highest precedence that has been queued for that link is sent.
Section 5.3.3.2 of RFC 1812 advises routers to default to maintaining
strict precedence-ordered service.
Gont Informational PAGE 58
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
Unfortunately, given that it is trivial to forge the IP precedence
field of the IP header, an attacker could simply forge a high
precedence number in the packets it sends to illegitimately get
better network service. If precedence-ordered queued service is not
required in a particular network infrastructure, it should be
disabled, and thus all packets would receive the same type of
service, despite the values in their Type of Service or
Differentiated Services fields.
When precedence-ordered queue service is required in the network
infrastructure, in order to mitigate the attack vector discussed in
the previous paragraph, edge routers or switches should be configured
to police and remark the Type of Service or Differentiated Services
values, according to the type of service at which each end-system has
been allowed to send packets.
Bullet 4 of Section 5.3.3.3 of RFC 1812 states that routers "MUST NOT
change precedence settings on packets it did not originate".
However, given the security implications of the Precedence field, it
is fair for routers, switches, or other middle-boxes, particularly
those in the network edge, to overwrite the Type of Service (or
Differentiated Services) field of the packets they are forwarding,
according to a configured network policy (this is the specified
behavior for DS domains [RFC 2475]).
Sections 5.3.3.1 and 5.3.6 of RFC 1812 state that if precedence-
ordered queue service is implemented and enabled, the router "MUST
NOT discard a packet whose precedence is higher than that of a packet
that is not discarded". While this recommendation makes sense given
the semantics of the Precedence field, it is important to note that
it would be simple for an attacker to send packets with forged high
Precedence value to congest some internet router(s), and cause all
(or most) traffic with a lower Precedence value to be discarded.
4.2.2. Weak Type of Service
Section 5.2.4.3 of RFC 1812 describes the algorithm for determining
the next-hop address (i.e., the forwarding algorithm). Bullet 3,
"Weak TOS", addresses the case in which routes contain a "type of
service" attribute. It states that in case a packet contains a non-
default TOS (i.e., 0000), only routes with the same TOS or with the
default TOS should be considered for forwarding that packet.
However, this means that if among the longest match routes for a
given packet are routes with some TOS other than the one contained in
the received packet, and no routes with the default TOS, the
corresponding packet would be dropped. This may or may not be a
desired behavior.
Gont Informational PAGE 59
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
An alternative for the case in which among the "longest match" routes
there are only routes with non-default type of service that do not
match the TOS contained in the received packet, would be to use a
route with any other TOS. While this route would most likely not be
able to address the type of service requested by packet, it would, at
least, provide a "best effort" service.
It must be noted that Section 5.3.2 of RFC 1812 allows routers to not
honor the TOS field. Therefore, the proposed alternative behavior is
still compliant with the IETF specifications.
While officially specified in the RFC series, TOS-based routing is
not widely deployed in the Internet.
4.2.3. Impact of Address Resolution on Buffer Management
In the case of broadcast link-layer technologies, in order for a
system to transfer an IP datagram it must usually first map an IP
address to the corresponding link-layer address (for example, by
means of the Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) [RFC 826]) . This
means that while this operation is being performed, the packets that
would require such a mapping would need to be kept in memory. This
may happen both in the case of hosts and in the case of routers.
This situation might be exploited by an attacker, which could send a
large amount of packets to a non-existent host that would supposedly
be directly connected to the attacked router. While trying to map
the corresponding IP address into a link-layer address, the attacked
router would keep in memory all the packets that would need to make
use of that link-layer address. At the point in which the mapping
function times out, depending on the policy implemented by the
attacked router, only the packet that triggered the call to the
mapping function might be dropped. In that case, the same operation
would be repeated for every packet destined to the non-existent host.
Depending on the timeout value for the mapping function, this
situation might lead the router to run out of free buffer space, with
the consequence that incoming legitimate packets would have to be
dropped, or that legitimate packets already stored in the router's
buffers might get dropped. Both of these situations would lead
either to a complete DoS or to a degradation of the network service.
One countermeasure to this problem would be to drop, at the point the
mapping function times out, all the packets destined to the address
that timed out. In addition, a "negative cache entry" might be kept
in the module performing the matching function, so that for some
amount of time, the mapping function would return an error when the
IP module requests to perform a mapping for some address for which
the mapping has recently timed out.
Gont Informational PAGE 60
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
A common implementation strategy for routers is that when a packet
is received that requires an ARP resolution to be performed before
the packet can be forwarded, the packet is dropped and the router
is then engaged in the ARP procedure.
4.2.4. Dropping Packets
In some scenarios, it may be necessary for a host or router to drop
packets from the output queue. In the event that one of such packets
happens to be an IP fragment, and there were other fragments of the
same packet in the queue, those other fragments should also be
dropped. The rationale for this policy is that it is nonsensical to
spend system resources on those other fragments, because, as long as
one fragment is missing, it will be impossible for the receiving
system to reassemble them into a complete IP datagram.
Some systems have been known to drop just a subset of fragments of a
given datagram, leading to a denial-of-service condition, as only a
subset of all the fragments of the packets were actually transferred
to the next hop.
4.3. Addressing
4.3.1. Unreachable Addresses
It is important to understand that while there are some addresses
that are supposed to be unreachable from the public Internet (such as
the private IP addresses described in RFC 1918 [RFC 1918], or the
"loopback" address), there are a number of tricks an attacker can
perform to reach those IP addresses that would otherwise be
unreachable (e.g., exploit the LSRR or SSRR IP options). Therefore,
when applicable, packet filtering should be performed at the private
network boundary to assure that those addresses will be unreachable.
Similarly, link-local unicast addresses [RFC 3927] and multicast
addresses with limited scope (link- and site-local addresses) should
not be accessible from outside the proper network boundaries and not
be passed across these boundaries.
[RFC 5735] provides a summary of special use IPv4 addresses.
4.3.2. Private Address Space
The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) has reserved the
following three blocks of the IP address space for private internets:
o 10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255 (10/8 prefix)
Gont Informational PAGE 61
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
o 172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255 (172.16/12 prefix)
o 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255 (192.168/16 prefix)
Use of these address blocks is described in RFC 1918 [RFC 1918].
Where applicable, packet filtering should be performed at the
organizational perimeter to assure that these addresses are not
reachable from outside the private network where such addresses are
employed.
4.3.3. Former Class D Addresses (224/4 Address Block)
The former Class D addresses correspond to the 224/4 address block
and are used for Internet multicast. Therefore, if a packet is
received with a "Class D" address as the Source Address, it should be
dropped, and this event should be logged (e.g., a counter could be
incremented to reflect the packet drop). Additionally, if an IP
packet with a multicast Destination Address is received for a
connection-oriented protocol (e.g., TCP), the packet should be
dropped (see Section 4.3.5), and this event should be logged (e.g., a
counter could be incremented to reflect the packet drop).
4.3.4. Former Class E Addresses (240/4 Address Block)
The former Class E addresses correspond to the 240/4 address block,
and are currently reserved for experimental use. As a result, a most
routers discard packets that contain a "Class" E address as the
Source Address or Destination Address. If a packet is received with
a 240/4 address as the Source Address and/or the Destination Address,
the packet should be dropped and this event should be logged (e.g., a
counter could be incremented to reflect the packet drop).
It should be noted that the broadcast address 255.255.255.255 still
must be treated as indicated in Section 4.3.7 of this document.
4.3.5. Broadcast/Multicast Addresses and Connection-Oriented Protocols
For connection-oriented protocols, such as TCP, shared state is
maintained between only two endpoints at a time. Therefore, if an IP
packet with a multicast (or broadcast) Destination Address is
received for a connection-oriented protocol (e.g., TCP), the packet
should be dropped, and this event should be logged (e.g., a counter
could be incremented to reflect the packet drop).
Gont Informational PAGE 62
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
4.3.6. Broadcast and Network Addresses
Originally, the IETF specifications did not permit IP addresses to
have the value 0 or -1 (shorthand for all bits set to 1) for any of
the Host number, network number, or subnet number fields, except for
the cases indicated in Section 4.3.7. However, this changed
fundamentally with the deployment of Classless Inter-Domain Routing
(CIDR) [RFC 4632], as with CIDR a system cannot know a priori what the
subnet mask is for a particular IP address.
Many systems now allow administrators to use the values 0 or -1 for
those fields. Despite that according to the original IETF
specifications these addresses are illegal, modern IP implementations
should consider these addresses to be valid.
4.3.7. Special Internet Addresses
RFC 1812 [RFC 1812] discusses the use of some special Internet
addresses, which is of interest to perform some sanity checks on the
Source Address and Destination Address fields of an IP packet. It
uses the following notation for an IP address:
{ <Network-prefix>, <Host-number> }
where the length of the network prefix is generally implied by the
network mask assigned to the IP interface under consideration.
RFC 1122 [RFC 1122] contained a similar discussion of special
Internet addresses, including some of the form { <Network-prefix>,
<Subnet-number>, <Host-number> }. However, as explained in
Section 4.2.2.11 of RFC 1812, in a CIDR world, the subnet number
is clearly an extension of the network prefix and cannot be
distinguished from the remainder of the prefix.
{0, 0}
This address means "this host on this network". It is meant to be
used only during the initialization procedure, by which the host
learns its own IP address.
If a packet is received with 0.0.0.0 as the Source Address for any
purpose other than bootstrapping, the corresponding packet should be
silently dropped, and this event should be logged (e.g., a counter
could be incremented to reflect the packet drop). If a packet is
received with 0.0.0.0 as the Destination Address, it should be
silently dropped, and this event should be logged (e.g., a counter
could be incremented to reflect the packet drop).
Gont Informational PAGE 63
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
{0, Host number}
This address means "the specified host, in this network". As in the
previous case, it is meant to be used only during the initialization
procedure by which the host learns its own IP address. If a packet
is received with such an address as the Source Address for any
purpose other than bootstrapping, it should be dropped, and this
event should be logged (e.g., a counter could be incremented to
reflect the packet drop). If a packet is received with such an
address as the Destination Address, it should be dropped, and this
event should be logged (e.g., a counter could be incremented to
reflect the packet drop).
{-1, -1}
This address is the local broadcast address. It should not be used
as a source IP address. If a packet is received with 255.255.255.255
as the Source Address, it should be dropped, and this event should be
logged (e.g., a counter could be incremented to reflect the packet
drop).
Some systems, when receiving an ICMP echo request, for example,
will use the Destination Address in the ICMP echo request packet
as the Source Address of the response they send (in this case, an
ICMP echo reply). Thus, when such systems receive a request sent
to a broadcast address, the Source Address of the response will
contain a broadcast address. This should be considered a bug,
rather than a malicious use of the limited broadcast address.
{Network number, -1}
This is the directed broadcast to the specified network. As
recommended by RFC 2644 [RFC 2644], routers should not forward
network-directed broadcasts. This avoids the corresponding network
from being utilized as, for example, a "smurf amplifier" [CERT1998a].
As noted in Section 4.3.6 of this document, many systems now allow
administrators to configure these addresses as unicast addresses for
network interfaces. In such scenarios, routers should forward these
addresses as if they were traditional unicast addresses.
In some scenarios, a host may have knowledge about a particular IP
address being a network-directed broadcast address, rather than a
unicast address (e.g., that IP address is configured on the local
system as a "broadcast address"). In such scenarios, if a system can
infer that the Source Address of a received packet is a network-
Gont Informational PAGE 64
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
directed broadcast address, the packet should be dropped, and this
event should be logged (e.g., a counter could be incremented to
reflect the packet drop).
As noted in Section 4.3.6 of this document, with the deployment of
CIDR [RFC 4632], it may be difficult for a system to infer whether a
particular IP address that does not belong to a directly attached
subnet is a broadcast address.
{127.0.0.0/8, any}
This is the internal host loopback address. Any packet that arrives
on any physical interface containing this address as the Source
Address, the Destination Address, or as part of a source route
(either LSRR or SSRR), should be dropped.
For example, packets with a Destination Address in the 127.0.0.0/8
address block that are received on an interface other than loopback
should be silently dropped. Packets received on any interface other
than loopback with a Source Address corresponding to the system
receiving the packet should also be dropped.
In all the above cases, when a packet is dropped, this event should
be logged (e.g., a counter could be incremented to reflect the packet
drop).
5. Security Considerations
This document discusses the security implications of the Internet
Protocol (IP) and a number of implementation strategies that help to
mitigate a number of vulnerabilities found in the protocol during the
last 25 years or so.
6. Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank Alfred Hoenes for providing very thorough
reviews of earlier versions of this document, thus leading to
numerous improvements.
The author would like to thank Jari Arkko, Ron Bonica, Stewart
Bryant, Adrian Farrel, Joel Jaeggli, Warren Kumari, Bruno Rohee, and
Andrew Yourtchenko for providing valuable comments on earlier
versions of this document.
This document was written by Fernando Gont on behalf of the UK CPNI
(United Kingdom's Centre for the Protection of National
Infrastructure), and is heavily based on the "Security Assessment of
the Internet Protocol" [CPNI2008] published by the UK CPNI in 2008.
Gont Informational PAGE 65
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
The author would like to thank Randall Atkinson, John Day, Juan
Fraschini, Roque Gagliano, Guillermo Gont, Martin Marino, Pekka
Savola, and Christos Zoulas for providing valuable comments on
earlier versions of [CPNI2008], on which this document is based.
The author would like to thank Randall Atkinson and Roque Gagliano,
who generously answered a number of questions.
Finally, the author would like to thank UK CPNI (formerly NISCC) for
their continued support.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC 791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
September 1981.
[RFC 826] Plummer, D., "Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol: Or
converting network protocol addresses to 48.bit Ethernet
address for transmission on Ethernet hardware", STD 37,
RFC 826, November 1982.
[RFC 1038] St. Johns, M., "Draft revised IP security option",
RFC 1038, January 1988.
[RFC 1063] Mogul, J., Kent, C., Partridge, C., and K. McCloghrie, "IP
MTU discovery options", RFC 1063, July 1988.
[RFC 1108] Kent, S., "U.S", RFC 1108, November 1991.
[RFC 1112] Deering, S., "Host extensions for IP multicasting", STD 5,
RFC 1112, August 1989.
[RFC 1122] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989.
[RFC 1191] Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191,
November 1990.
[RFC 1349] Almquist, P., "Type of Service in the Internet Protocol
Suite", RFC 1349, July 1992.
[RFC 1393] Malkin, G., "Traceroute Using an IP Option", RFC 1393,
January 1993.
[RFC 1770] Graff, C., "IPv4 Option for Sender Directed Multi-
Destination Delivery", RFC 1770, March 1995.
Gont Informational PAGE 66
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
[RFC 1812] Baker, F., "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers",
RFC 1812, June 1995.
[RFC 1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and
E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996.
[RFC 2113] Katz, D., "IP Router Alert Option", RFC 2113,
February 1997.
[RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC 2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
"Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
December 1998.
[RFC 2475] Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z.,
and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated
Services", RFC 2475, December 1998.
[RFC 2644] Senie, D., "Changing the Default for Directed Broadcasts
in Routers", BCP 34, RFC 2644, August 1999.
[RFC 2827] Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering:
Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source
Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, May 2000.
[RFC 3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
RFC 3168, September 2001.
[RFC 3704] Baker, F. and P. Savola, "Ingress Filtering for Multihomed
Networks", BCP 84, RFC 3704, March 2004.
[RFC 3927] Cheshire, S., Aboba, B., and E. Guttman, "Dynamic
Configuration of IPv4 Link-Local Addresses", RFC 3927,
May 2005.
[RFC 4086] Eastlake, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker, "Randomness
Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086, June 2005.
[RFC 4632] Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing
(CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation
Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, August 2006.
Gont Informational PAGE 67
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
[RFC 4821] Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU
Discovery", RFC 4821, March 2007.
[RFC 5082] Gill, V., Heasley, J., Meyer, D., Savola, P., and C.
Pignataro, "The Generalized TTL Security Mechanism
(GTSM)", RFC 5082, October 2007.
[RFC 5350] Manner, J. and A. McDonald, "IANA Considerations for the
IPv4 and IPv6 Router Alert Options", RFC 5350,
September 2008.
[RFC 5735] Cotton, M. and L. Vegoda, "Special Use IPv4 Addresses",
BCP 153, RFC 5735, January 2010.
[RFC 6040] Briscoe, B., "Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion
Notification", RFC 6040, November 2010.
7.2. Informative References
[Anderson2001]
Anderson, J., "An Analysis of Fragmentation Attacks",
2001, <http://www.ouah.org/fragma.html>.
[Arkin2000]
Arkin, "IP TTL Field Value with ICMP (Oops - Identifying
Windows 2000 again and more)", 2000,
<http://ofirarkin.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/
ofirarkin2000-06.pdf>.
[Barisani2006]
Barisani, A., "FTester - Firewall and IDS testing tool",
2001, <http://dev.inversepath.com/trac/ftester>.
[Bellovin1989]
Bellovin, S., "Security Problems in the TCP/IP Protocol
Suite", Computer Communication Review Vol. 19, No. 2, pp.
32-48, 1989.
[Bellovin2002]
Bellovin, S., "A Technique for Counting NATted Hosts",
IMW'02 Nov. 6-8, 2002, Marseille, France, 2002.
[Bendi1998]
Bendi, "Bonk exploit", 1998,
<http://www.insecure.org/sploits/
95.NT.fragmentation.bonk.html>.
Gont Informational PAGE 68
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
[Biondi2007]
Biondi, P. and A. Ebalard, "IPv6 Routing Header Security",
CanSecWest 2007 Security Conference, 2007,
<http://www.secdev.org/conf/IPv6_RH_security-csw07.pdf>.
[CERT1996a]
CERT, "CERT Advisory CA-1996-01: UDP Port Denial-of-
Service Attack", 1996,
<http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-1996-01.html>.
[CERT1996b]
CERT, "CERT Advisory CA-1996-21: TCP SYN Flooding and IP
Spoofing Attacks", 1996,
<http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-1996-21.html>.
[CERT1996c]
CERT, "CERT Advisory CA-1996-26: Denial-of-Service Attack
via ping", 1996,
<http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-1996-26.html>.
[CERT1997] CERT, "CERT Advisory CA-1997-28: IP Denial-of-Service
Attacks", 1997,
<http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-1997-28.html>.
[CERT1998a]
CERT, "CERT Advisory CA-1998-01: Smurf IP Denial-of-
Service Attacks", 1998,
<http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-1998-01.html>.
[CERT1998b]
CERT, "CERT Advisory CA-1998-13: Vulnerability in Certain
TCP/IP Implementations", 1998,
<http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-1998-13.html>.
[CERT1999] CERT, "CERT Advisory CA-1999-17: Denial-of-Service Tools",
1999, <http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-1999-17.html>.
[CERT2003] CERT, "CERT Advisory CA-2003-15: Cisco IOS Interface
Blocked by IPv4 Packet", 2003,
<http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2003-15.html>.
[CIPSO1992]
CIPSO, "COMMERCIAL IP SECURITY OPTION (CIPSO 2.2)", Work
in Progress, 1992.
Gont Informational PAGE 69
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
[CIPSOWG1994]
CIPSOWG, "Commercial Internet Protocol Security Option
(CIPSO) Working Group", 1994, <http://www.ietf.org/
proceedings/94jul/charters/cipso-charter.html>.
[CPNI2008] Gont, F., "Security Assessment of the Internet Protocol",
2008, <http://www.cpni.gov.uk/Docs/InternetProtocol.pdf>.
[Cerf1974] Cerf, V. and R. Kahn, "A Protocol for Packet Network
Intercommunication", IEEE Transactions on
Communications Vol. 22, No. 5, May 1974, pp. 637-648,
1974.
[Cisco2003]
Cisco, "Cisco Security Advisory: Cisco IOS Interface
Blocked by IPv4 packet", 2003, <http://www.cisco.com/en/
US/products/
products_security_advisory09186a00801a34c2.shtml>.
[Cisco2008]
Cisco, "Cisco IOS Security Configuration Guide, Release
12.2", 2003, <http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_2/
security/configuration/guide/scfipso.html>.
[Clark1988]
Clark, D., "The Design Philosophy of the DARPA Internet
Protocols", Computer Communication Review Vol. 18, No. 4,
1988.
[Ed3f2002] Ed3f, "Firewall spotting and networks analysis with a
broken CRC", Phrack Magazine, Volume 0x0b, Issue
0x3c, Phile #0x0c of 0x10, 2002, <http://www.phrack.org/
issues.html?issue=60&id=12&mode=txt>.
[FIPS1994] FIPS, "Standard Security Label for Information Transfer",
Federal Information Processing Standards Publication. FIP
PUBS 188, 1994, <http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/fips/
fips188/fips188.pdf>.
[Fyodor2004]
Fyodor, "Idle scanning and related IP ID games", 2004,
<http://www.insecure.org/nmap/idlescan.html>.
[GIAC2000] GIAC, "Egress Filtering v 0.2", 2000,
<http://www.sans.org/y2k/egress.htm>.
[Gont2006] Gont, F., "Advanced ICMP packet filtering", 2006,
<http://www.gont.com.ar/papers/icmp-filtering.html>.
Gont Informational PAGE 70
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
[Haddad2004]
Haddad, I. and M. Zakrzewski, "Security Distribution for
Linux Clusters", Linux Journal, 2004,
<http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6943>.
[Humble1998]
Humble, "Nestea exploit", 1998,
<http://www.insecure.org/sploits/
linux.PalmOS.nestea.html>.
[IANA_ET] IANA, "Ether Types",
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/ethernet-numbers>.
[IANA_IP_PARAM]
IANA, "IP Parameters",
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/ip-parameters>.
[IANA_PROT_NUM]
IANA, "Protocol Numbers",
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/protocol-numbers>.
[IRIX2008] IRIX, "IRIX 6.5 trusted_networking(7) manual page", 2008,
<http://techpubs.sgi.com/library/tpl/cgi-bin/
getdoc.cgi?coll=0650&db=man&fname=/usr/share/catman/a_man/
cat7/trusted_networking.z>.
[Jones2002]
Jones, R., "A Method Of Selecting Values For the
Parameters Controlling IP Fragment Reassembly", 2002,
<ftp://ftp.cup.hp.com/dist/networking/briefs/
ip_reass_tuning.txt>.
[Kenney1996]
Kenney, M., "The Ping of Death Page", 1996,
<http://www.insecure.org/sploits/ping-o-death.html>.
[Kent1987] Kent, C. and J. Mogul, "Fragmentation considered harmful",
Proc. SIGCOMM '87 Vol. 17, No. 5, October 1987, 1987.
[Klein2007]
Klein, A., "OpenBSD DNS Cache Poisoning and Multiple O/S
Predictable IP ID Vulnerability", 2007,
<http://www.trusteer.com/files/
OpenBSD_DNS_Cache_Poisoning_and_Multiple_OS_Predictable_IP
_ID_Vulnerability.pdf>.
Gont Informational PAGE 71
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
[Kohno2005]
Kohno, T., Broido, A., and kc. Claffy, "Remote Physical
Device Fingerprinting", IEEE Transactions on Dependable
and Secure Computing Vol. 2, No. 2, 2005.
[LBNL2006] LBNL/NRG, "arpwatch tool", 2006, <http://ee.lbl.gov/>.
[Linux] Linux Kernel Organization, "The Linux Kernel Archives",
<http://www.kernel.org>.
[Microsoft1999]
Microsoft, "Microsoft Security Program: Microsoft Security
Bulletin (MS99-038). Patch Available for "Spoofed Route
Pointer" Vulnerability", 1999, <http://www.microsoft.com/
technet/security/bulletin/ms99-038.mspx>.
[NISCC2004]
NISCC, "NISCC Vulnerability Advisory 236929: Vulnerability
Issues in TCP", 2004, <http://www.cpni.gov.uk>.
[NISCC2005]
NISCC, "NISCC Vulnerability Advisory 532967/NISCC/ICMP:
Vulnerability Issues in ICMP packets with TCP payloads",
2005, <http://www.gont.com.ar/advisories/index.html>.
[NISCC2006]
NISCC, "NISCC Technical Note 01/2006: Egress and Ingress
Filtering", 2006, <http://www.cpni.gov.uk>.
[Northcutt2000]
Northcut, S. and Novak, "Network Intrusion Detection - An
Analyst's Handbook", Second Edition New Riders Publishing,
2000.
[Novak2005]
Novak, "Target-Based Fragmentation Reassembly", 2005,
<http://www.snort.org/assets/165/target_based_frag.pdf>.
[OpenBSD-PF]
Sanfilippo, S., "PF: Scrub (Packet Normalization)", 2010,
<ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/doc/pf-faq.pdf>.
[OpenBSD1998]
OpenBSD, "OpenBSD Security Advisory: IP Source Routing
Problem", 1998,
<http://www.openbsd.org/advisories/sourceroute.txt>.
Gont Informational PAGE 72
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
[Paxson2001]
Paxson, V., Handley, M., and C. Kreibich, "Network
Intrusion Detection: Evasion, Traffic Normalization, and
End-to-End Protocol Semantics", USENIX Conference, 2001.
[Ptacek1998]
Ptacek, T. and T. Newsham, "Insertion, Evasion and Denial
of Service: Eluding Network Intrusion Detection", 1998,
<http://www.aciri.org/vern/Ptacek-Newsham-Evasion-98.ps>.
[RFC 815] Clark, D., "IP datagram reassembly algorithms", RFC 815,
July 1982.
[RFC 1858] Ziemba, G., Reed, D., and P. Traina, "Security
Considerations for IP Fragment Filtering", RFC 1858,
October 1995.
[RFC 2544] Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for
Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, March 1999.
[RFC 3128] Miller, I., "Protection Against a Variant of the Tiny
Fragment Attack (RFC 1858)", RFC 3128, June 2001.
[RFC 3530] Shepler, S., Callaghan, B., Robinson, D., Thurlow, R.,
Beame, C., Eisler, M., and D. Noveck, "Network File System
(NFS) version 4 Protocol", RFC 3530, April 2003.
[RFC 4963] Heffner, J., Mathis, M., and B. Chandler, "IPv4 Reassembly
Errors at High Data Rates", RFC 4963, July 2007.
[RFC 4987] Eddy, W., "TCP SYN Flooding Attacks and Common
Mitigations", RFC 4987, August 2007.
[RFC 5559] Eardley, P., "Pre-Congestion Notification (PCN)
Architecture", RFC 5559, June 2009.
[RFC 5570] StJohns, M., Atkinson, R., and G. Thomas, "Common
Architecture Label IPv6 Security Option (CALIPSO)",
RFC 5570, July 2009.
[RFC 5670] Eardley, P., "Metering and Marking Behaviour of PCN-
Nodes", RFC 5670, November 2009.
[RFC 5696] Moncaster, T., Briscoe, B., and M. Menth, "Baseline
Encoding and Transport of Pre-Congestion Information",
RFC 5696, November 2009.
[RFC 5927] Gont, F., "ICMP Attacks against TCP", RFC 5927, July 2010.
Gont Informational PAGE 73
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
[ROUTER-ALERT]
Le Faucheur, F., Ed., "IP Router Alert Considerations and
Usage", Work in Progress, June 2011.
[SELinux2009]
NSA, "Security-Enhanced Linux",
<http://www.nsa.gov/research/selinux/>.
[Sanfilippo1998a]
Sanfilippo, S., "about the ip header id", Post to Bugtraq
mailing-list, Mon Dec 14 1998,
<http://www.kyuzz.org/antirez/papers/ipid.html>.
[Sanfilippo1998b]
Sanfilippo, S., "Idle scan", Post to Bugtraq mailing-list,
1998, <http://www.kyuzz.org/antirez/papers/dumbscan.html>.
[Sanfilippo1999]
Sanfilippo, S., "more ip id", Post to Bugtraq mailing-
list, 1999,
<http://www.kyuzz.org/antirez/papers/moreipid.html>.
[Shankar2003]
Shankar, U. and V. Paxson, "Active Mapping: Resisting NIDS
Evasion Without Altering Traffic", 2003,
<http://www.icir.org/vern/papers/activemap-oak03.pdf>.
[Shannon2001]
Shannon, C., Moore, D., and K. Claffy, "Characteristics of
Fragmented IP Traffic on Internet Links", 2001.
[Silbersack2005]
Silbersack, M., "Improving TCP/IP security through
randomization without sacrificing interoperability",
EuroBSDCon 2005 Conference, 2005,
<http://www.silby.com/eurobsdcon05/eurobsdcon_slides.pdf>.
[Snort] Sourcefire, Inc., "Snort", <http://www.snort.org>.
[Solaris2007]
Oracle, "ORACLE SOLARIS WITH TRUSTED EXTENSIONS", 2007, <h
ttp://www.oracle.com/us/products/servers-storage/solaris/
solaris-trusted-ext-ds-075583.pdf>.
[Song1999] Song, D., "Frag router tool",
<http://www.monkey.org/~dugsong/fragroute/>.
Gont Informational PAGE 74
RFC 6274 IPv4 Security Assessment July 2011
[SpooferProject]
MIT ANA, "Spoofer Project", 2010,
<http://spoofer.csail.mit.edu/index.php>.
[US-CERT2001]
US-CERT, "US-CERT Vulnerability Note VU#446689: Check
Point FireWall-1 allows fragmented packets through
firewall if Fast Mode is enabled", 2001,
<http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/446689>.
[US-CERT2002]
US-CERT, "US-CERT Vulnerability Note VU#310387: Cisco IOS
discloses fragments of previous packets when Express
Forwarding is enabled", 2002.
[Watson2004]
Watson, P., "Slipping in the Window: TCP Reset Attacks",
CanSecWest Conference, 2004.
[Zakrzewski2002]
Zakrzewski, M. and I. Haddad, "Linux Distributed Security
Module", 2002, <http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6215>.
[daemon91996]
daemon9, route, and infinity, "IP-spoofing Demystified
(Trust-Relationship Exploitation)", Phrack Magazine,
Volume Seven, Issue Forty-Eight, File 14 of 18, 1988, <htt
p://www.phrack.org/issues.html?issue=48&id=14&mode=txt>.
Author's Address
Fernando Gont
UK Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure
EMail: fernando@gont.com.ar
URI: http://www.cpni.gov.uk
Gont Informational PAGE 75
Security Assessment of the Internet Protocol Version 4
RFC TOTAL SIZE: 179909 bytes
PUBLICATION DATE: Tuesday, July 5th, 2011
LEGAL RIGHTS: The IETF Trust (see BCP 78)
|
