exploit the possibilities

IETF I-D On Fragmentation Related Security Issues Revision 01

IETF I-D On Fragmentation Related Security Issues Revision 01
Posted Mar 4, 2012
Authored by Fernando Gont

This Internet Draft specifies the security implications of predictable fragment identification values in IPv6. It primarily focuses on countermeasures and mitigations.

Changes: Various updates and additions.
tags | paper
MD5 | 3249e274aace1bdccca29647b9dba579

IETF I-D On Fragmentation Related Security Issues Revision 01

Change Mirror Download



IPv6 maintenance Working Group (6man) F. Gont
Internet-Draft UK CPNI
Updates: 2460, 5722 (if approved) March 3, 2012
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: September 4, 2012


Security Implications of Predictable Fragment Identification Values
draft-gont-6man-predictable-fragment-id-01

Abstract

IPv6 specifies the Fragment Header, which is employed for the
fragmentation and reassembly mechanisms. The Fragment Header
contains an "Identification" field which, together with the IPv6
Source Address and the IPv6 Destination Address of the packet,
identifies fragments that correspond to the same original datagram,
such that they can be reassembled together at the receiving host.
The only requirement for setting the "Identification" value is that
it must be different than that of any other fragmented packet sent
recently with the same Source Address and Destination Address. Some
implementations simply use a global counter for setting the Fragment
Identification field, thus leading to predictable values. This
document analyzes the security implications of predictable
Identification values, and updates RFC 2460 specifying additional
requirements for setting the Fragment Identification, such that the
aforementioned security implications are mitigated.

Status of this Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may not be modified,
and derivative works of it may not be created, and it may not be
published except as an Internet-Draft.

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 September 4, 2012.

Copyright Notice



Gont Expires September 4, 2012 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft Implications of Predictable Fragment IDs March 2012


Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.


Table of Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Security Implications of Predictable Fragment
Identification values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Updating RFC 2460 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Constraints for the selection of Fragment Identification
Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Algorithms for Selecting Fragment Identification Values . . . 9
5.1. Recommended algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. Randomized Identification values . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.3. Hash-based Fragment Identification selection algorithm . . 10
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendix A. Information leakage produced by vulnerable
implementations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Appendix B. Changes from previous versions of the document
(to be removed by the RFC Editor before
publication of this document as a RFC) . . . . . . . 20
B.1. Changes from draft-gont-6man-predictable-fragment-id-00 . 20
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21












Gont Expires September 4, 2012 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft Implications of Predictable Fragment IDs March 2012


1. Introduction

IPv6 specifies the Fragment Header, which is employed for the
fragmentation and reassembly mechanisms. The Fragment Header
contains an "Identification" field which, together with the IPv6
Source Address and the IPv6 Destination Address of the packet,
identifies fragments that correspond to the same original datagram,
such that they can be reassembled together at the receiving host.
The only requirement for setting the "Identification" value is that
it must be different than that of any other fragmented packet sent
recently with the same Source Address and Destination Address.

The most trivial algorithm to avoid reusing Fragment Identification
values too quickly is to maintain a global counter that is
incremented for each fragmented packet that is sent. However, this
trivial algorithm leads to predictable Identification values, which
can be leveraged for performing a variety of attacks.

Section 2 of this document analyzes the security implications of
predictable Identification values. Section 3 updates RFC 2460 by
adding the requirement that Identification values not be predictable
by an off-path attacker. Section 4 discusses constraints in the
possible algorithms for selecting Fragment Identification values.
Finally, Section 5 specifies a number of algorithms that could be
used for generating Identification values.

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].






















Gont Expires September 4, 2012 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft Implications of Predictable Fragment IDs March 2012


2. Security Implications of Predictable Fragment Identification values

Predictable Identification values result in an information leakage
that can be exploited in a number of ways. Among others, they may
potentially be exploited to:

o determine the packet rate at which a given system is transmitting
information,

o perform stealth port scans to a third-party,

o uncover the rules of a number of firewalls,

o count the number of systems behind a middle-box, or,

o perform a Denial of Service (DoS) attack

[CPNI-IPv6] contains a detailed analysis of possible vulnerabilities
introduced by predictable Fragment Identification values. In
summary, their security implications are very similar to those of
predictable Identification values in IPv4.

[Sanfilippo1998a] originally pointed out how the IPv4
Identification field could be examined to determine the packet
rate at which a given system is transmitting information. Later,
[Sanfilippo1998b] described how a system with such an
implementation could 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 IPv4 Identification
field can be exploited to count the number of systems behind a
NAT. [Fyodor2004] is an entire paper on most (if not all) the
ways to exploit the information provided by the Identification
field of the IPv4 header (and these results apply in a similar way
to IPv6).

One key difference between the IPv4 case and the IPv6 case is that in
IPv4 the Identification field is part of the fixed IPv4 header (and
thus usually set for all packets), while in IPv6 the Identification
field is set only in those packets that employ a Fragment Header. As
a result, successful exploitation of the Identification field against
communication instances with arbitrary destinations depends on two
different factors:

o IPv6 implementations using predictable Identification values, and,

o the ability of the attacker to cause the victim host to fragment
packets destined to other nodes



Gont Expires September 4, 2012 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft Implications of Predictable Fragment IDs March 2012


As noted in the previous section, some implementations are known to
use predictable identification values.

For example, Linux 2.6.38-8 sets the Identification field
according to a global counter that is incremented by one for each
datagram that is sent with a fragment header (either a single
fragment or as multiple fragments).

Finally, we note that an attacker could cause a victim host to
fragment its outgoing packets by sending it a forged ICMPv6 'Packet
Too Big' error message advertising a Next-Hop MTU smaller than 1280
bytes.

RFC 1981 [RFC1981] states that when an ICMPv6 Packet Too Big error
message with an MTU smaller than 1280 bytes is received, the
receiving host is not required to reduce the Path-MTU for the
corresponding destination address, but must simply include a
Fragment Header in all subsequent packets sent to that
destination. In order to make sure that the forged ICMPv6 Packet
Too Big error message triggers fragmentation at the victim host,
the attacker could set the MTU field of the error message to a
value smaller than 1280 bytes. Since the minimum IPv6 MTU is 1280
bytes, such value would always be smaller than the Path-MTU in use
for that destination.

There are a few issues that should be considered, though:

o In all the implementations the author is aware of, an attacker can
only cause the victim to enable fragmentation on a per-destination
basis. That is, the victim will use fragmentation only for those
packets sent to the Source Address of IPv6 packet embedded in the
payload of the ICMPv6 Packet Too Big error message.

Section 5.2 of [RFC1981] notes that an implementation could
maintain a single system-wide PMTU value to be used for all
packets originating from that nodes. Clearly, such an
implementations would exacerbate the problem of any attacks
based on PMTUD [RFC5927] or IPv6 fragmentation.

o If the victim node implements some of the counter-measures for
ICMP attacks described in RFC 5927 [RFC5927], it might be
difficult for an attacker to cause the victim node to use
fragmentation for its outgoing packets.

Some implementations do not incorporate countermeasures for
attacks based on ICMPv6 error messages. For example, Linux
2.6.38-8 does not even require received ICMPv6 error messages
to correspond to ongoing communication instances.



Gont Expires September 4, 2012 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft Implications of Predictable Fragment IDs March 2012


Implementations that employ predictable Identification values and
also fail to include countermeasures against attacks based on ICMPv6
error messages will be vulnerable to attacks similar to those based
on the IPv4 Identification field for IPv4 networks, such as the
stealth port-scanning technique described in [Sanfilippo1998b].

One possible way in which predictable Identification values could be
leveraged for performing a Denial of Service (DoS) attack is as
follows: once the Identification value currently in use at the victim
host has been learned, the attacker would send a forged ICMPv6 Packet
Too Big error message to the victim host, with the IPv6 Destination
Address of the embedded IPv6 packet set to the IPv6 address of a
third-party host with which the victim is communicating. This ICMPv6
Packet Too Big error message would cause any packets sent from the
victim to the third-party host to include a Fragment Header. The
attacker would then send forged IPv6 fragments to the third-party
host, with their IPv6 Source Address set to that of the victim host,
and with the Identification field of the forged fragments set to
values that would result in collisions at the third-party host. If
the third-party host discards fragments that result in collisions of
Identification values, the attacker could simply trash the
Identification space by sending multiple forged fragments with
different Identification values, such that any subsequent packets
from the victim host are discarded at the third-party host as a
result of the malicious fragments sent by the attacker.

For example, Linux 2.6.38-10 is vulnerable to the aforementioned
issue.

[I-D.ietf-6man-ipv6-atomic-fragments] describes an improved
processing of these packets that would eliminate this specific
attack vector, at least in the case of TCP connections that employ
the Path-MTU Discovery mechanism.

The aforementioned attack scenario is simply included to illustrate
the problem of employing predictable fragment Identification values,
rather than to indicate a specific attack vector that needs to be
mitigated.

We note that regardless of the attacker's ability to cause a victim
host to employ fragmentation when communicating with third-parties,
use of predictable Identification values makes communication flows
that employ fragmentation vulnerable to any fragmentation-based
attacks.







Gont Expires September 4, 2012 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft Implications of Predictable Fragment IDs March 2012


3. Updating RFC 2460

Hereby we update RFC 2460 [RFC2460] as follows:

The Identification value of the Fragment Header MUST NOT be
predictable by an off-path attacker.

Section 5 specifies the RECOMMENDED algorithm for setting the
Identification value of the Fragment Header.










































Gont Expires September 4, 2012 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft Implications of Predictable Fragment IDs March 2012


4. Constraints for the selection of Fragment Identification Values

the "Identification" field of the Fragmentation Header is 32-bits
long. However, when translators [RFC6145] are employed, the
"effective" length of the IPv6 Fragment Identification field is 16
bits.

[RFC6145] notes that, when translating in the IPv6-to-IPv4
direction, "if there is a Fragment Header in the IPv6 packet, the
last 16 bits of its value MUST be used for the IPv4 identification
value". This means that the high-order 16 bits are effectively
ignored.

As a result, at least during the IPv6/IPv4 transition/co-existence
phase, it is probably safer to assume that only the last 16 bits of
the IPv6 Fragment Identification may be used in some cases.

Regarding the selection of Fragment Identification values, the only
requirement specified in [RFC2460] is that the Fragment
Identification must be different than that of any other fragmented
packet sent recently with the same Source Address and Destination
Address.

Failure to comply with that requirement might lead to the
interoperability problems discussed in [RFC4963].

From a security standpoint, unpredictable Identification values are
desirable. However, this is somewhat at odds with the "re-use"
requirements specified in [RFC2460].

Finally, since Fragment Identification values need to be selected for
each outgoing datagram that requires fragmentation, the performance
aspect should be considered when choosing an algorithm for the
selection of Fragment Identification values.

















Gont Expires September 4, 2012 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft Implications of Predictable Fragment IDs March 2012


5. Algorithms for Selecting Fragment Identification Values

Section 5.1 specifies the RECOMMENDED algorithm for setting the
Fragment Identification field. Section 5.2 and Section 5.3 describes
other algorithms that MAY alternatively be employed.

5.1. Recommended algorithm

This section specifies the RECOMMENDED algorithm for the selection of
Fragment Identification values.

1. Whenever a packet must be sent with a Fragment Header, the
sending host should perform a look-up in the Destinations Cache
an entry corresponding to the intended Destination Address.

2. If such an entry exists, it contains the last Fragment
Identification value used for that Destination. Therefore, such
value should be incremented by 1, and used for setting the
Fragment Identification value of the outgoing packet.
Additionally, the updated value should be recorded in the
corresponding entry of the Destination Cache.

3. If such an entry does not exist, it should be created, and the
"Identification" value for that destination should be initialized
with a random value (e.g., with a pseudorandom number generator),
and used for setting the Identification field of the Fragment
Header of the outgoing packet.

The advantages of this algorithm are:

o It is simple to implement, with the only complexity residing in
the PRNG used to initialize the "Identification" value contained
in each entry of the Destinations Cache

o The "Identification" re-use frequency will typically be lower than
that achieved by a global counter (when sending traffic to
multiple destinations), since this algorithm uses per-destination
counters (rather than a single system-wide counter).

o It has good performance properties (once the corresponding entry
in the Destinations Cache has been created, each subsequent
"Identification" value simply involves the increment of a
counter).

The possible drawbacks of this algorithm are:

o If as a result of resource management an entry of the Destinations
Cache must be removed, the last Fragment Identification value used



Gont Expires September 4, 2012 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft Implications of Predictable Fragment IDs March 2012


for that Destination is obviously lost. Thus, if subsequent
traffic to that destination causes the aforementioned entry to be
re-created, the Fragment Identification value will be randomized,
thus possibly leading to Fragment Identification "collisions".

o Since the Fragment Identification values are predictable by the
destination host, a vulnerable host might possible leak to third-
parties the Fragment Identification values used by other hosts to
send traffic to it (i.e., Host B could leak to Host C the Fragment
Identification values that Host A is using to send packets to Host
B).

Appendix A describes a scenario in which that information
leakage could take place.

5.2. Randomized Identification values

Clearly, use of a Pseudo-Random Number Generator (PRNG) for selecting
the Fragment Identification could be desirable from a security
standpoint. With such a scheme, the Fragment Identification of each
fragmented datagram would be selected as:

Identification = random()

where "random()" is the PRNG.

The specific properties of such scheme would clearly depend on the
specific PRNG algorithm used. For example, some PRNGs may result in
higher Fragment Identification reuse frequencies than others, in the
same way as some PRNGs may be more expensive (in terms of processing
requirements and/or implementation complexity) than others.

Discussion of the properties of possible PRNGs is considered out of
the scope of this document. However, we do note that some PRNGs
employed in the past by some implementations have been found to be
predictable [Klein2007]. Please see [RFC4086] for randomness
requirements for security.

5.3. Hash-based Fragment Identification selection algorithm

Another alternative is to implement a hash-based algorithm similar to
that specified in for the selection of transport port numbers. With
such a scheme, the Fragment Identification value of each fragment
datagram would be selected with the expression:

Identification = F(Src IP, Dst IP, secret1) +
counter[G(src IP, Dst Pref, secret2)]




Gont Expires September 4, 2012 [Page 10]

Internet-Draft Implications of Predictable Fragment IDs March 2012


where:

Identification:
Identification value to be used for the fragmented datagram

F():
Hash function

Src IP:
IPv6 Source Address of the datagram to be fragmented

Dst IP:
IPv6 Destination Address of the datagram to be fragmented

secret1:
Secret data unknown to the attacker

counter[]:
System-wide array of 32-bit counters (e.g. with 8K elements or
more)

G():
Hash function. May or may not be the same hash function as that
used for F()

Dst Pref:
IPv6 "Destination Prefix" of datagram to be fragmented (can be
assumed to be the first eight bytes of the Destination Address of
such packet). Note: the "Destination Prefix" (rather than
Destination Address) is used, such that the ability of an attacker
of searching the "increments" space by using multiple addresses of
the same subnet is reduced.

secret1:
Secret data unknown to the attacker

Note: counter[G(src IP, Dst Pref, secret2)] should be incremented by
one each time an Identification value is selected.

The advantages of this algorithm are:

o The "Identification" re-use frequency will typically be lower than
that achieved by a global counter (when sending traffic to
multiple destinations), since this algorithm uses multiple system-
wide counters (rather than a single system-wide counter). The
extent to which the re-use frequency will be lower will depend on
the number of elements in counter[], and the number of other
active flows that result in the same value of G() (and hence cause



Gont Expires September 4, 2012 [Page 11]

Internet-Draft Implications of Predictable Fragment IDs March 2012


the same counter to be incremented for each fragmented datagram
that is sent).

o

o It is possible to implement the algorithm such that good
performance is achieved. For example, the result of F() could be
stored in the Destinations Cache (such that it need not be
recomputed for each packet that must be sent) along with computed
*index* for counter[].

It should be noted that if this implementation approach is
followed, and an entry of the Destinations Cache must be
removed as a result of resource management, the last Fragment
Identification value used for that Destination will *not* lost.
This is an improvement over the algorithm specified in
Section 5.1.

The possible drawbacks of this algorithm are:

o Since the Fragment Identification values are predictable by the
destination host, a vulnerable host could possibly leak to third-
parties the Fragment Identification values used by other hosts to
send traffic to it (i.e., Host B could leak to Host C the Fragment
Identification values that Host A is using to send packets to Host
B).

Appendix A describes a scenario in which that information
leakage could take place. We note, however, that this
algorithm makes the aforementioned attack less reliable for the
attacker, since each counter could be possibly shared by
multiple traffic flows (i.e., packets destined to other
destinations might cause the counter to be incremented).

This algorithm might be preferable (over the RECOMMENDED algorithm
specified in Section 5.1) in those scenarios in which a node is
expected to communicate with a large number of destinations, and thus
it is desirable to limit the amount of information to be maintained
in memory.

In such scenarios, if the algorithm specified in Section 5.1 were
implemented, entries from the Destinations Cache might need to be
pruned frequently, thus increasing the risk of fragment
Identification collisions.







Gont Expires September 4, 2012 [Page 12]

Internet-Draft Implications of Predictable Fragment IDs March 2012


6. IANA Considerations

There are no IANA registries within this document. The RFC-Editor
can remove this section before publication of this document as an
RFC.














































Gont Expires September 4, 2012 [Page 13]

Internet-Draft Implications of Predictable Fragment IDs March 2012


7. Security Considerations

This document describes the security implications of predictable
Fragment Identification values, and updates RFC 2460 such that the
Fragment Identification values employed are unpredictable by off-path
attackers, and hence the aforementioned security implications are
mitigated.

While a specific algorithm is RECOMMENDED, other possible algorithms
are described, since the selection of a Fragment-Identification
selection algorithm represents a number of trade-offs (security,
performance, implementation complexity, interoperability properties,
etc.).






































Gont Expires September 4, 2012 [Page 14]

Internet-Draft Implications of Predictable Fragment IDs March 2012


8. Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Ivan Arce for proposing the attack
scenario described in Appendix A, and for providing valuable comments
on earlier versions of this document.

This document is based on the technical report "Security Assessment
of the Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6)" [CPNI-IPv6] authored by
Fernando Gont on behalf of the UK Centre for the Protection of
National Infrastructure (CPNI).

Fernando Gont would like to thank the UK CPNI
(http://www.cpni.gov.uk) for their continued support.






































Gont Expires September 4, 2012 [Page 15]

Internet-Draft Implications of Predictable Fragment IDs March 2012


9. References

9.1. Normative References

[RFC1981] McCann, J., Deering, S., and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery
for IP version 6", RFC 1981, August 1996.

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.

[RFC4086] Eastlake, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker, "Randomness
Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086, June 2005.

[RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, "Internet Control
Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol
Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, March 2006.

[RFC5722] Krishnan, S., "Handling of Overlapping IPv6 Fragments",
RFC 5722, December 2009.

[RFC6145] Li, X., Bao, C., and F. Baker, "IP/ICMP Translation
Algorithm", RFC 6145, April 2011.

9.2. Informative References

[RFC4963] Heffner, J., Mathis, M., and B. Chandler, "IPv4 Reassembly
Errors at High Data Rates", RFC 4963, July 2007.

[RFC5927] Gont, F., "ICMP Attacks against TCP", RFC 5927, July 2010.

[RFC6274] Gont, F., "Security Assessment of the Internet Protocol
Version 4", RFC 6274, July 2011.

[I-D.ietf-6man-ipv6-atomic-fragments]
Gont, F., "Processing of IPv6 "atomic" fragments",
draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-atomic-fragments-00 (work in
progress), February 2012.

[Bellovin2002]
Bellovin, S., "A Technique for Counting NATted Hosts",
IMW'02 Nov. 6-8, 2002, Marseille, France, 2002.

[CPNI-IPv6]
Gont, F., "Security Assessment of the Internet Protocol
version 6 (IPv6)", UK Centre for the Protection of



Gont Expires September 4, 2012 [Page 16]

Internet-Draft Implications of Predictable Fragment IDs March 2012


National Infrastructure, (available on request).

[Fyodor2004]
Fyodor, "Idle scanning and related IP ID games", 2004,
<http://www.insecure.org/nmap/idlescan.html>.

[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>.

[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>.

























Gont Expires September 4, 2012 [Page 17]

Internet-Draft Implications of Predictable Fragment IDs March 2012


Appendix A. Information leakage produced by vulnerable implementations

Section 2 provides a number of references describing a number of ways
in which the information leakage produced by a vulnerable
implementation could be leveraged by an attacker. This section
describes a specific network scenario in which a vulnerable
implementation could possibly leak the current Fragment
Identification value in use by a third-party host to send fragmented
datagrams to the vulnerable implementation.

For the most part, this section is included to illustrate how a
vulnerable implementation might be leveraged to leak-out the
Fragment Identification value of an otherwise secure
implementation. This section might be removed in future revisions
of this document.

The following scenarios assume:

A:
Is an IPv6 host that implements the recommended Fragment
Identification algorithm (Section 5.1), implements [RFC5722], but
does not implement [I-D.ietf-6man-ipv6-atomic-fragments].

B:
Victim node. Selected the Fragment Identification values from a
global counter.

C:
Attacker. Can forge the IPv6 Source Address of his packets at
will.

If the attacker sends forged SYN packets to a closed TCP port, and
then fails when trying to produce a collision of Fragment
Identifications (see line #4), the following packet exchange might
take place:

A B C

#1 <------ Echo Req #1 ----------
#2 --- Echo Resp #1, FID=5000 --->
#3 <------------------- SYN #1, src= B -----------------------
#4 <---- SYN/ACK, FID=42 src = A---
#5 ---- SYN/ACK, FID=9000 --->
#6 <---- RST, FID= 5001 -----
#7 <---- RST, FID= 5002 -----
#8 <-------- Echo Req #2 ----------
#9 ---- Echo Resp #2, FID= 5003 -->




Gont Expires September 4, 2012 [Page 18]

Internet-Draft Implications of Predictable Fragment IDs March 2012


On the other hand, if the attacker succeeds to produce a collision of
Fragment Identification values, the following packet exchange could
take place:

A B C

#1 <------- Echo Req #1 ----------
#2 ---- Echo Resp #1, FID=5000 --->
#3 <------------------- SYN #1, src= B -----------------------
#4 <-- SYN/ACK, FID=9000 src=A ---
#5 ---- SYN/ACK, FID=9000 --->
... (RFC5722) ...
#6 <-------- Echo Req #2 ----------
#7 ---- Echo Resp #2, FID= 5001 -->

Clearly, the Fragment Identification value sampled by from the second
ICMPv6 Echo Response packet ("Echo Resp #2") implicitly indicates
whether the Fragment Identification in the forged SYN/ACK (see line
#4 in both figures) was the current Fragment Identification in use by
Host A.

As a result, the attacker could employ this technique to learn the
current Fragment Identification value used by host A to send packets
to host B.



























Gont Expires September 4, 2012 [Page 19]

Internet-Draft Implications of Predictable Fragment IDs March 2012


Appendix B. Changes from previous versions of the document (to be
removed by the RFC Editor before publication of this
document as a RFC)

B.1. Changes from draft-gont-6man-predictable-fragment-id-00

o The constraints for the possible Fragment-Identification selection
algorithm are now described in more detail (e.g., the I-D now
mentioned that translators only use the last 16 bits of the IPv6
Fragment Identification).

o The I-D now provides a discussion of possible Fragment-
Identification selection algorithms, and analyzes the trade-offs.






































Gont Expires September 4, 2012 [Page 20]

Internet-Draft Implications of Predictable Fragment IDs March 2012


Author's Address

Fernando Gont
UK CPNI

Email: fgont@si6networks.com
URI: http://www.cpni.gov.uk












































Gont Expires September 4, 2012 [Page 21]

Comments

RSS Feed Subscribe to this comment feed

No comments yet, be the first!

Login or Register to post a comment

File Archive:

October 2019

  • Su
  • Mo
  • Tu
  • We
  • Th
  • Fr
  • Sa
  • 1
    Oct 1st
    24 Files
  • 2
    Oct 2nd
    15 Files
  • 3
    Oct 3rd
    7 Files
  • 4
    Oct 4th
    4 Files
  • 5
    Oct 5th
    10 Files
  • 6
    Oct 6th
    1 Files
  • 7
    Oct 7th
    21 Files
  • 8
    Oct 8th
    19 Files
  • 9
    Oct 9th
    5 Files
  • 10
    Oct 10th
    20 Files
  • 11
    Oct 11th
    17 Files
  • 12
    Oct 12th
    4 Files
  • 13
    Oct 13th
    4 Files
  • 14
    Oct 14th
    15 Files
  • 15
    Oct 15th
    19 Files
  • 16
    Oct 16th
    25 Files
  • 17
    Oct 17th
    17 Files
  • 18
    Oct 18th
    7 Files
  • 19
    Oct 19th
    1 Files
  • 20
    Oct 20th
    0 Files
  • 21
    Oct 21st
    0 Files
  • 22
    Oct 22nd
    0 Files
  • 23
    Oct 23rd
    0 Files
  • 24
    Oct 24th
    0 Files
  • 25
    Oct 25th
    0 Files
  • 26
    Oct 26th
    0 Files
  • 27
    Oct 27th
    0 Files
  • 28
    Oct 28th
    0 Files
  • 29
    Oct 29th
    0 Files
  • 30
    Oct 30th
    0 Files
  • 31
    Oct 31st
    0 Files

Top Authors In Last 30 Days

File Tags

Systems

packet storm

© 2019 Packet Storm. All rights reserved.

Services
Security Services
Hosting By
Rokasec
close