Test Tools for IoT DDoS vulnerability scanning
draft-faibish-iot-ddos-usecases-03

• Status
• IESG evaluation record
• IESG writeups
• Email expansions
• History

• Versions
• 00
• 01
• 02
• 03

TEEP WG                                                       S. Faibish
Internet-Draft                                                  Dell EMC
Intended status: Informational                           M. K. Chowdhury
Expires: December 30, 2020                               Deloitte Canada
                                                           June 30, 2020

               Test Tools for IoT DDoS vulnerability scanning
                   draft-faibish-iot-ddos-usecases-03
Abstract

   This document specifies several usecases related to the different 
   ways IoT devices are exploited by malicious adversaries to 
   instantiate Distributed Denial of Services (DDoS) attacks. The 
   attacks are generted from IoT devices that have no proper protection 
   against generating unsolicited communication messages targeting a 
   certain network and creating large amounts of network traffic. The 
   attackers take advantage of breaches in the configuration data in 
   unprotected IoT devices exploited for DDoS attacks. The attackers 
   take advantage of the IoT devices that can send network packets 
   that were generated by malicious code that interacts with an OS 
   implementation that runs on the IoT devices. The prupose of this 
   draft is to present possible IoT DDoS usecases that need to be 
   prevented by TEE. The major enabler of such attacks is related to 
   IoT devices that have no OS or unprotected EE OS and run
   code that is downloaded to them from the TA and modified by 
   man-in-the-middle that inserts malicious code in the OS. This draft 
   adds list of MUD files for most IoT devices. 

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."

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 
   https://www.ietf.org/standards/ids/internet-draft-mirror-sites/.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on June 30, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Faibish             Expires December 30, 2020                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft   Usecases definition for IoT DDoS attacks     June 2020 

   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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Usecases  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.1. Upgradable OS less IoT devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.2. IoT devices connected to a gateway server  . . . . . . . .   6
     4.3. Smart IoT devices with full OS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7. References   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10

1.  Introduction

   Problems with IoT devices arise from the fact that manufacturers 
   ship their devices with almost no security measures and the 
   companies that buy these IoT devices don't have proper 
   visibility/understanding of their networks with these new products.
   Applications executing in an IoT device are exposed to many different
   attacks intended to compromise the execution of the application, or
   reveal the data upon which those applications are operating. The 
   problem is more acute for IoT devices that run low level of OS or no