Article

Origin authentication in interdomain routing

Computer Science and Engineering, Pennsylvania State University, 344 IST Building, University Park, PA 16802, United States; Department of Computer Science, University of British Columbia, 201 Main Mall, Vancouver, Canada, BC V6T 1Z4; Center for Computational Learning Systems, Columbia University, 475 Riverside Ave, New York, NY 10115, United States
Computer Networks 11/2003; DOI: 10.1016/j.comnet.2005.11.007
Source: CiteSeer

ABSTRACT Attacks against Internet routing are increasing in number and severity. Contributing greatly to these attacks is the absence of origin authentication; there is no way to validate claims of address ownership or location. The lack of such services not only enables attacks by malicious entities, but also indirectly allows seemingly inconsequential misconfigurations to disrupt large portions of the Internet. This paper considers the semantics, design, and costs of origin authentication in interdomain routing. We formalize the semantics of address delegation and use on the Internet, and develop and characterize original, broad classes of origin authentication proof systems. We estimate the address delegation graph representing the current use of IPv4 address space using available routing data. This effort reveals that current address delegation is dense and relatively static: as few as 16 entities perform 80% of the delegation on the Internet. We conclude by evaluating the proposed services via trace-based simulation, which demonstrates that the enhanced proof systems can significantly reduce resource costs associated with origin authentication.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
106 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We present LOT, a lightweight plug and play secure tunneling protocol deployed at network gateways. Two communicating gateways, A and B, running LOT would automatically detect each other and establish an efficient tunnel, securing communication between them. LOT tunnels allow A to discard spoofed packets that specify source addresses in B’s network and vice versa. This helps to mitigate many attacks, including DNS poisoning, network scans, and most notably (Distributed) Denial of Service (DoS). LOT tunnels provide several additional defenses against DoS attacks. Specifically, since packets received from LOT-protected networks cannot be spoofed, LOT gateways implement quotas, identifying and blocking packet floods from specific networks. Furthermore, a receiving LOT gateway (e.g., B) can send the quota assigned to each tunnel to the peer gateway (A), which can then enforce near-source quotas, reducing waste and congestion by filtering excessive traffic before it leaves the source network. Similarly, LOT tunnels facilitate near-source filtering, where the sending gateway discards packets based on filtering rules defined by the destination gateway. LOT gateways also implement an intergateway congestion detection mechanism, allowing sending gateways to detect when their packets get dropped before reaching the destination gateway and to perform appropriate near-source filtering to block the congesting traffic; this helps against DoS attacks on the backbone connecting the two gateways. LOT is practical: it is easy to manage (plug and play, requires no coordination between gateways), deployed incrementally at edge gateways (not at hosts and core routers), and has negligible overhead in terms of bandwidth and processing, as we validate experimentally. LOT storage requirements are also modest.
    ACM Transactions on Information and System Security 07/2012; 15(2):6:1-6:30. · 0.69 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper provides the provable-security treatment of path vector routing protocols. We first design a security definition for routing path vector protocols by studying, generalizing, and formalizing numerous known threats. Our model incorporates three major security goals. It is quite strong, yet simple to use. We prove by reduction that S-BGP satisfies two out of the security model's three goals, assuming the underlying signature scheme is secure. Under the same assumption, we next show how the protocol can be modified to meet all three security goals simultaneously. Finally, we study security of partial PKI deployment of path vector protocols when not all nodes have public keys. We investigate the possibilities of relaxing the PKI requirement and relying on the non-cryptographic physical security of the protocol in order to achieve possibly weaker, but still well-defined, notions of security. We also present the necessary and sufficient conditions to achieve full security in the partial PKI deployment scenario. We believe our conclusions will prove useful for protocol developers, standards bodies and government agencies.
    Proceedings of the 2012 ACM conference on Computer and communications security; 10/2012
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: As the rollout of secure route origin authentication with the RPKI slowly gains traction among network operators, there is a push to standardize secure path validation for BGP (i.e., S*BGP: S-BGP, soBGP, BGPSEC, etc.). Origin authentication already does much to improve routing security. Moreover, the transition to S*BGP is expected to be long and slow, with S*BGP coexisting in "partial deployment" alongside BGP for a long time. We therefore use theoretical and experimental approach to study the security benefits provided by partially-deployed S*BGP, vis-a-vis those already provided by origin authentication. Because routing policies have a profound impact on routing security, we use a survey of 100 network operators to find the policies that are likely to be most popular during partial S*BGP deployment. We find that S*BGP provides only meagre benefits over origin authentication when these popular policies are used. We also study the security benefits of other routing policies, provide prescriptive guidelines for partially-deployed S*BGP, and show how interactions between S*BGP and BGP can introduce new vulnerabilities into the routing system.
    07/2013;

Full-text

View
18 Downloads
Available from