--- 1/draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation-04.txt 2016-01-20 16:15:10.393565906 -0800 +++ 2/draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation-05.txt 2016-01-20 16:15:10.417566507 -0800 @@ -1,142 +1,159 @@ IPv6 maintenance Working Group (6man) F. Gont Internet-Draft SI6 Networks / UTN-FRH Intended status: Informational W. Liu -Expires: May 29, 2016 Huawei Technologies +Expires: July 23, 2016 Huawei Technologies T. Anderson Redpill Linpro - November 26, 2015 + January 20, 2016 - Deprecation of the Generation of IPv6 Atomic Fragments - draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation-04 + Generation of IPv6 Atomic Fragments Considered Harmful + draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation-05 Abstract RFC2460 requires that when a host receives an ICMPv6 "Packet Too Big" message reporting an MTU smaller than 1280 bytes, the host includes a Fragment Header in all subsequent packets sent to that destination, without reducing the assumed Path-MTU. The simplicity with which - ICMPv6 "Packet Too Big" messages can be forged, coupled with the - widespread filtering of IPv6 fragments, results in an attack vector - that can be leveraged for Denial of Service purposes. This document - briefly discusses the aforementioned attack vector, and why the - aforementioned functionality is undesirable. + ICMPv6 "Packet Too Big" messages can be forged means that an attacker + can leverage this functionality (the generation of IPv6 atomic + fragments) to trigger the use of fragmentation for any arbitrary IPv6 + flow, and subsequently perform any fragmentation-based attack. This + document discusses the security implications of the generation of + IPv6 atomic fragments and a number of interoperability issues + associated with IPv6 atomic fragments, and concludes that the + aforementioned functionality is undesirable, thus documenting the + motivation for removing this functionality in the revision of the + core IPv6 protocol specification [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc2460bis]. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - This Internet-Draft will expire on May 29, 2016. + This Internet-Draft will expire on July 23, 2016. Copyright Notice - Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the + Copyright (c) 2016 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. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 3. Denial of Service (DoS) attack vector . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 4. Additional Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 3. Security Implications of the Generation of IPv6 Atomic + Fragments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 + 4. Additional Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Appendix A. Small Survey of OSes that Fail to Produce IPv6 - Atomic Fragments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + Atomic Fragments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1. Introduction [RFC2460] specifies the IPv6 fragmentation mechanism, which allows - IPv6 packets to be fragmented into smaller pieces such that they fit - in the Path-MTU to the intended destination(s). + IPv6 packets to be fragmented into smaller pieces such that they can + fit in the Path-MTU to the intended destination(s). Section 5 of [RFC2460] states that, when a host receives an ICMPv6 "Packet Too Big" message [RFC4443] advertising an MTU smaller than 1280 bytes (the minimum IPv6 MTU), the host is not required to reduce the assumed Path-MTU, but must simply include a Fragment Header in all subsequent packets sent to that destination. The resulting packets will thus *not* be actually fragmented into several pieces, but rather just include a Fragment Header with both the "Fragment - Offset" and the "M" flag set to 0 (we refer to these packets as - "atomic fragments"). As required by [RFC6946], these atomic - fragments are essentially processed by the destination host as non- - fragmented traffic (since there are not really any fragments to be - reassembled). The goal of these atomic fragments has been to convey - an appropriate Fragment Identification value to be employed by IPv6/ - IPv4 translators for the resulting IPv4 fragments. + Offset" and the "M" flag set to 0 (i.e., "atomic fragments" + [RFC6946]). [RFC6946] requires that these atomic fragments be + essentially processed by the destination host as non-fragmented + traffic (since there are not really any fragments to be reassembled). + The goal of these atomic fragments is simply to convey an appropriate + Identification value to be employed by IPv6/IPv4 translators for the + resulting IPv4 fragments. While atomic fragments might seem rather benign, there are scenarios - in which the generation of IPv6 atomic fragments can introduce an - attack vector that can be exploited for denial of service purposes. - + in which the generation of IPv6 atomic fragments can be leveraged for + performing a number of attacks against the corresponding IPv6 flows. Since there are concrete security implications arising from the generation of IPv6 atomic fragments, and there is no real gain in generating IPv6 atomic fragments (as opposed to e.g. having IPv6/IPv4 translators generate a Fragment Identification value themselves), we conclude that this functionality is undesirable. - Section 3 describes some possible attack scenarios. Section 4 + Section 3 briefly discusses the security implications of the + generation of IPv6 atomic fragments, and describes a specific Denial + of Service (DoS) attack vector that leverages the widespread + filtering of IPv6 fragments in the public Internet. Section 4 provides additional considerations regarding the usefulness of generating IPv6 atomic fragments. 2. Terminology - IPv6 atomic fragments + IPv6 atomic fragments: IPv6 packets that contain a Fragment Header with the Fragment Offset set to 0 and the M flag set to 0 (as defined by [RFC6946]). 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 [RFC2119]. -3. Denial of Service (DoS) attack vector +3. Security Implications of the Generation of IPv6 Atomic Fragments - Let us assume that Host A is communicating with Server B, and that, - as a result of the widespread filtering of IPv6 packets with - extension headers (including fragmentation) + The security implications of IP fragmentation have been discussed at + length in [RFC6274] and [I-D.ietf-6man-predictable-fragment-id]. An + attacker can leverage the generation of IPv6 atomic fragments to + trigger the use of fragmentation in an arbitrary IPv6 flow and + subsequently perform any fragmentation-based attack against legacy + IPv6 nodes that do not implement [RFC6946]. + + Unfortunately, even nodes that already implement [RFC6946] can be + subject to DoS attacks as a result of the generation of IPv6 atomic + fragments. Let us assume that Host A is communicating with Server B, + and that, as a result of the widespread dropping of IPv6 packets that + contain extension headers (including fragmentation) [I-D.ietf-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-in-real-world], some intermediate node filters fragments between Host A and Server B. If an attacker sends a forged ICMPv6 "Packet Too Big" (PTB) error message to server B, reporting an MTU smaller than 1280, this will trigger the generation of IPv6 atomic fragments from that moment on (as required by [RFC2460]). When server B starts sending IPv6 atomic fragments (in response to the received ICMPv6 PTB), these packets will be dropped, - since we previously noted that packets with IPv6 EHs were being - dropped between Host A and Server B. Thus, this situation will - result in a Denial of Service (DoS) scenario. + since we previously noted that IPv6 packets with extension headers + were being dropped between Host A and Server B. Thus, this situation + will result in a Denial of Service (DoS) scenario. Another possible scenario is that in which two BGP peers are employing IPv6 transport, and they implement Access Control Lists (ACLs) to drop IPv6 fragments (to avoid control-plane attacks). If the aforementioned BGP peers drop IPv6 fragments but still honor received ICMPv6 Packet Too Big error messages, an attacker could easily attack the peering session by simply sending an ICMPv6 PTB message with a reported MTU smaller than 1280 bytes. Once the attack packet has been sent, it will be the aforementioned routers themselves the ones dropping their own traffic. @@ -154,148 +171,165 @@ use of extension headers (by the attacker) could make this difficult, if at all possible. o Many implementations fail to perform validation checks on the received ICMPv6 error messages, as recommended in Section 5.2 of [RFC4443] and documented in [RFC5927]. It should be noted that in some cases, such as when an ICMPv6 error message has (supposedly) been elicited by a connection-less transport protocol (or some other connection-less protocol being encapsulated in IPv6), it may be virtually impossible to perform validation checks on the - received ICMPv6 error messages. And, because of IPv6 extension + received ICMPv6 error message. And, because of IPv6 extension headers, the ICMPv6 payload might not even contain any useful information on which to perform validation checks. o Upon receipt of one of the aforementioned ICMPv6 "Packet Too Big" error messages, the Destination Cache [RFC4861] is usually updated to reflect that any subsequent packets to such destination should include a Fragment Header. This means that a single ICMPv6 "Packet Too Big" error message might affect multiple communication instances (e.g., TCP connections) with such destination. o As noted in Section 4, SIIT [RFC6145] (including derivative protocols such as Stateful NAT64 [RFC6146]) is the only technology which currently makes use of atomic fragments. Unfortunately, an IPv6 node cannot easily limit its exposure to the aforementioned attack vector by only generating IPv6 atomic fragments towards IPv4 destinations behind a stateless translator. This is due to - the fact that Section 3.3 of RFC6052 [RFC6052] encourages - operators to use a Network-Specific Prefix (NSP) that maps the - IPv4 address space into IPv6. When an NSP is being used, IPv6 - addresses representing IPv4 nodes (reached through a stateless - translator) are indistinguishable from native IPv6 addresses. + the fact that Section 3.3 of [RFC6052] encourages operators to use + a Network-Specific Prefix (NSP) that maps the IPv4 address space + into IPv6. When an NSP is being used, IPv6 addresses representing + IPv4 nodes (reached through a stateless translator) are + indistinguishable from native IPv6 addresses. 4. Additional Considerations Besides the security assessment provided in Section 3, it is interesting to evaluate the pros and cons of having an IPv6-to-IPv4 translating router rely on the generation of IPv6 atomic fragments. Relying on the generation of IPv6 atomic fragments implies a reliance on: 1. ICMPv6 packets arriving from the translator to the IPv6 node 2. The ability of the nodes receiving ICMPv6 PTB messages reporting an MTU smaller than 1280 bytes to actually produce atomic fragments 3. Support for IPv6 fragmentation on the IPv6 side of the translator + 4. The ability of the translator implementation to access the + information conveyed by the IPv6 Fragment Header + Unfortunately, - o There exists a fair share of evidence of ICMPv6 Packet Too Big + 1. There exists a fair share of evidence of ICMPv6 Packet Too Big messages being dropped on the public Internet (for instance, that is one of the reasons for which PLPMTUD [RFC4821] was produced). Therefore, relying on such messages being successfully delivered will affect the robustness of the protocol that relies on them. - o A number of IPv6 implementations have been known to fail to + 2. A number of IPv6 implementations have been known to fail to generate IPv6 atomic fragments in response to ICMPv6 PTB messages reporting an MTU smaller than 1280 bytes (see Appendix A for a - small survey). Additionally, the results included in Section 6 of - [RFC6145] note that 57% of the tested web servers failed to + small survey). Additionally, the results included in Section 6 + of [RFC6145] note that 57% of the tested web servers failed to produce IPv6 atomic fragments in response to ICMPv6 PTB messages reporting an MTU smaller than 1280 bytes. Thus, any protocol relying on IPv6 atomic fragment generation for proper functioning will have interoperability problems with the aforementioned IPv6 stacks. - o IPv6 atomic fragment generation represents a case in which + 3. IPv6 atomic fragment generation represents a case in which fragmented traffic is produced where otherwise it would not be needed. Since there is widespread filtering of IPv6 fragments in the public Internet [I-D.ietf-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-in-real-world], this would mean that the (unnecessary) use of IPv6 fragmentation might result, unnecessarily, in a Denial of Service situation even in legitimate cases. - Finally, we note that SIIT essentially employs the Fragment Header of - IPv6 atomic fragments to signal the translator how to set the DF bit - of IPv4 datagrams (the DF bit is cleared when the IPv6 packet - contains a Fragment Header, and is otherwise set to 1 when the IPv6 - packet does not contain an IPv6 Fragment Header). Additionally, the - translator will employ the low-order 16-bits of the IPv6 Fragment - Identification for setting the IPv4 Fragment Identification. At - least in theory, this is expected to reduce the Fragment ID collision - rate in the following specific scenario: + 4. The packet-handling API at the node where the translator is + running may obscure fragmentation-related information. In such + scenarios, the information conveyed by the Fragment Header may be + unavailable to the translator. [JOOL] discusses a sample + framework (Linux Netfilter) that hinders access to the + information conveyed in IPv6 atomic fragments. + + We note that SIIT essentially employs the Fragment Header of IPv6 + atomic fragments to signal the translator how to set the DF bit of + IPv4 datagrams (the DF bit is cleared when the IPv6 packet contains a + Fragment Header, and is otherwise set to 1 when the IPv6 packet does + not contain an IPv6 Fragment Header). Additionally, the translator + will employ the low-order 16-bits of the IPv6 Fragment Identification + for setting the IPv4 Fragment Identification. At least in theory, + this is expected to reduce the IPv4 Identification collision rate in + the following specific scenario: 1. An IPv6 node communicates with an IPv4 node (through SIIT) - 2. The IPv4 node is located behind an IPv4 link with an MTU < 1260 + 2. The IPv4 node is located behind an IPv4 link with an MTU smaller + than 1260 bytes + 3. ECMP routing [RFC2992] with more than one translator is employed for e.g., redundancy purposes In such a scenario, if each translator were to select the IPv4 - Fragment Identification on its own (rather than selecting the IPv4 - Fragment ID from the low-order 16-bits of the Fragment Identification - of atomic fragments), this could possibly lead to IPv4 Fragment ID - collisions. However, since a number of implementations set IPv6 - Fragment ID according to the output of a Pseudo-Random Number - Generator (PRNG) (see Appendix B of + Identification on its own (rather than selecting the IPv4 + Identification from the low-order 16-bits of the Fragment + Identification of IPv6 atomic fragments), this could possibly lead to + IPv4 Identification collisions. However, since a number of + implementations set the IPv6 Fragment Identification according to the + output of a Pseudo-Random Number Generator (PRNG) (see Appendix B of [I-D.ietf-6man-predictable-fragment-id]) and the translator only employs the low-order 16-bits of such value, it is very unlikely that - relying on the Fragment ID of the IPv6 atomic fragment will result in - a reduced Fragment ID collision rate (when compared to the case where - the translator selects each IPv4 Fragment ID on its own). + relying on the Fragment Identification of the IPv6 atomic fragment + will result in a reduced IPv4 Identification collision rate (when + compared to the case where the translator selects each IPv4 + Identification on its own). Finally, we note that [RFC6145] is currently the only "consumer" of IPv6 atomic fragments, and it correctly and diligently notes (in Section 6) the possible interoperability problems of relying on IPv6 atomic fragments, proposing as a workaround that leads to more robust behavior and simplified code. 5. IANA Considerations There are no IANA registries within this document. The RFC-Editor can remove this section before publication of this document as an RFC. 6. Security Considerations - This document describes a Denial of Service (DoS) attack vector that - leverages the widespread filtering of IPv6 fragments in the public - Internet by means of ICMPv6 PTB error messages. It concludes that - the generation of IPv6 atomic fragments is an undesirable feature. + This document briefly discusses the security implications of the + generation of IPv6 atomic fragments, and describes a specific Denial + of Service (DoS) attack vector that leverages the widespread + filtering of IPv6 fragments in the public Internet. It concludes + that the generation of IPv6 atomic fragments is an undesirable + feature, and documents the motivation for removing this functionality + from [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc2460bis]. 7. Acknowledgements - The authors would like to thank (in alphabetical order) Alberto - Leiva, Bob Briscoe, Brian Carpenter, Tatuya Jinmei, Jeroen Massar, - Erik Nordmark, and Ole Troan, for providing valuable comments on - earlier versions of this document. + The authors would like to thank (in alphabetical order) Congxiao Bao, + Bob Briscoe, Brian Carpenter, Tatuya Jinmei, Bob Hinden, Alberto + Leiva, Xing Li, Jeroen Massar, Erik Nordmark, Qiong Sun, Ole Troan, + and Tina Tsou, for providing valuable comments on earlier versions of + this document. - Fernando Gont would like to thank Fernando Gont would like to thank - Jan Zorz / Go6 Lab , and Jared Mauch / NTT - America, for providing access to systems and networks that were - employed to produce some of tests that resulted in the publication of - this document. Additionally, he would like to thank SixXS - for providing IPv6 connectivity. + Fernando Gont would like to thank Jan Zorz / Go6 Lab + , and Jared Mauch / NTT America, for providing + access to systems and networks that were employed to produce some of + tests that resulted in the publication of this document. + Additionally, he would like to thank SixXS + for providing IPv6 connectivity. 8. References 8.1. Normative References [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460, December 1998, . [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate @@ -339,62 +373,80 @@ [RFC6052] Bao, C., Huitema, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X. Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators", RFC 6052, DOI 10.17487/RFC6052, October 2010, . [RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, DOI 10.17487/RFC6146, April 2011, . + [RFC6274] Gont, F., "Security Assessment of the Internet Protocol + Version 4", RFC 6274, DOI 10.17487/RFC6274, July 2011, + . + [RFC6946] Gont, F., "Processing of IPv6 "Atomic" Fragments", RFC 6946, DOI 10.17487/RFC6946, May 2013, . [I-D.ietf-6man-predictable-fragment-id] Gont, F., "Security Implications of Predictable Fragment Identification Values", draft-ietf-6man-predictable- fragment-id-10 (work in progress), October 2015. [I-D.ietf-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-in-real-world] Gont, F., Linkova, J., Chown, T., and S. LIU, "Observations on the Dropping of Packets with IPv6 Extension Headers in the Real World", draft-ietf-v6ops- - ipv6-ehs-in-real-world-01 (work in progress), October + ipv6-ehs-in-real-world-02 (work in progress), December 2015. + [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc2460bis] + Deering, S. and B. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 + (IPv6) Specification", draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-02 (work + in progress), December 2015. + [Morbitzer] Morbitzer, M., "TCP Idle Scans in IPv6", Master's Thesis. Thesis number: 670. Department of Computing Science, Radboud University Nijmegen. August 2013, - . + [JOOL] Leiva Popper, A., "nf_defrag_ipv4 and nf_defrag_ipv6", + April 2015, . + Appendix A. Small Survey of OSes that Fail to Produce IPv6 Atomic Fragments [This section will probably be removed from this document before it is published as an RFC]. This section includes a non-exhaustive list of operating systems that *fail* to produce IPv6 atomic fragments. It is based on the results - published in [RFC6946] and [Morbitzer]. + published in [RFC6946] and [Morbitzer]. It is simply meant as a + datapoint regarding the extent to which IPv6 implementations can be + relied upon to generate IPv6 atomic fragments. The following Operating Systems fail to generate IPv6 atomic fragments in response to ICMPv6 PTB messages that report an MTU smaller than 1280 bytes: o FreeBSD 8.0 + o Linux kernel 2.6.32 o Linux kernel 3.2 + o Linux kernel current + o Mac OS X 10.6.7 o NetBSD 5.1 Authors' Addresses Fernando Gont SI6 Networks / UTN-FRH Evaristo Carriego 2644 Haedo, Provincia de Buenos Aires 1706