Teredo Security Updates
draft-krishnan-v6ops-teredo-update-10
The information below is for an old version of the document that is already published as an RFC.
| Document | Type | RFC Internet-Draft (individual in int area) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | James Hoagland , Suresh Krishnan , Dave Thaler | ||
| Last updated | 2015-10-14 (Latest revision 2010-06-03) | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text htmlized pdfized bibtex | ||
| Reviews | |||
| Stream | WG state | (None) | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 5991 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Jari Arkko | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-krishnan-v6ops-teredo-update-10
IPv6 Operations Working Group D. Thaler
Internet-Draft Microsoft
Updates: 4380 (if approved) S. Krishnan
Intended status: Standards Track Ericsson
Expires: December 5, 2010 J. Hoagland
Symantec
June 3, 2010
Teredo Security Updates
draft-krishnan-v6ops-teredo-update-10
Abstract
The Teredo protocol defines a set of flags that are embedded in every
Teredo IPv6 address. This document specifies a set of security
updates that modify the use of this flags field, but are backward
compatible.
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 December 5, 2010.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 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
Thaler, et al. Expires December 5, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Teredo Security Updates June 2010
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Random Address Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Deprecation of Cone Bit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix A. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix B. Resistance to address prediction . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Thaler, et al. Expires December 5, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Teredo Security Updates June 2010
1. Introduction
Teredo [RFC4380] defines a set of flags that are embedded in every
Teredo IPv6 address. This document specifies a set of security
updates that modify the use of this flags field, but are backwards
compatible.
The flags field in a Teredo IPv6 address has 13 unused bits out of a
total of 16 bits. To guard against address-scanning risks [RFC5157]
from malicious users, this update randomizes 12 of the 13 unused bits
when configuring the Teredo IPv6 address. Even if an attacker were
able to determine the external (mapped) IPv4 address and port
assigned by a NAT to the Teredo client, the attacker would still need
to attack a range of 4,096 IPv6 addresses to determine the actual
Teredo IPv6 address of the client.
The cone bit in a Teredo IPv6 address indicates whether a peer needs
to send Teredo control messages before communicating with a Teredo
IPv6 address. Unfortunately, it may also have some value in terms of
profiling to the extent that it reveals the security posture of the
network. If the cone bit is set, an attacker may decide it is
fruitful to port scan the embedded external IPv4 address and others
associated with the same organization, looking for open ports.
Deprecating the cone bit prevents the a priori revelation of the
security posture of the NAT.
Thaler, et al. Expires December 5, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Teredo Security Updates June 2010
2. Terminology
This document uses the following terminology, for consistency with
[RFC4380].
Cone NAT: A NAT that maps all requests from the same internal IP
address and port to the same external IP address and port.
Furthermore, any external host can send a packet to the internal host
by sending a packet to the mapped external address and port.
Indirect Bubble: A Teredo control message that is sent to another
Teredo client via the destination's Teredo server, as specified in
[RFC4380] section 5.2.4.
Local Address/Port: The IPv4 address and UDP port from which a Teredo
client sends Teredo packets. The local port is referred to as the
Teredo service port in [RFC4380]. The local address of a node may or
may not be globally routable because the node can be located behind
one or more NATs.
Mapped Address/Port: A global IPv4 address and a UDP port that
results from the translation of a node's own local address/port by
one or more NATs. The node learns these values through the Teredo
protocol specified in [RFC4380]. the mapped address/port can be
different for every peer that a node tries to communicate with.
Network Address Translation (NAT): The process of converting between
IP addresses used within an intranet or other private network and
Internet IP addresses.
Peer: A Teredo client with which another Teredo Client needs to
communicate.
Port-Preserving NAT: A NAT that translates a local address/port to a
mapped address/port such that the mapped port has the same value as
the local port, as long as that same mapped address/port has not
already been used for a different local address/port.
Public Address: An external global address used by a NAT.
Restricted NAT: A NAT where all requests from the same internal IP
address and port are mapped to the same external IP address and port.
Unlike the cone NAT, an external host can send packets to an internal
host (by sending a packet to the external mapped address and port)
only if the internal host has first sent a packet to the external
host.
Teredo Client: A node that implements the client parts of [RFC4380],
Thaler, et al. Expires December 5, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Teredo Security Updates June 2010
has access to the IPv4 Internet and wants to gain access to the IPv6
Internet.
Teredo IPv6 Address: An IPv6 address that starts with the prefix
2001:0000:/32 and is formed as specified in Section 4 of [RFC4380].
Teredo Server: A node that has a globally routable address on the
IPv4 Internet, and is used as a helper to provide IPv6 connectivity
to Teredo clients.
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].
Thaler, et al. Expires December 5, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Teredo Security Updates June 2010
3. Specification
3.1. Random Address Flags
Teredo addresses are structured and some of the fields contained in
them are fairly predictable. This makes the addresses themselves
easier to predict and opens up a vulnerability.
Teredo prefix: This field is 32 bits and has a single IANA assigned
value
Server: This field is 32 bits and is set to the server in use. The
server to use is usually statically configured on the client.
This means that overall entropy of the server field will be low,
i.e., that the server will not be hard to predict. Attackers
could confine their guessing to the most popular server IP
addresses.
Flags: The flags field is 16 bits in length, but [RFC4380] provides
for only one of these bits (the cone bit) to vary.
Client port: This 16 bit field corresponds to the external port
number assigned to the client's Teredo service port. Thus the
value of this field depends on two factors (the chosen Teredo
service port and the NAT port assignment behavior) and therefore
it is harder to predict the entropy this field will have. If
clients tend to use a predictable port number and NATs are often
port-preserving, then the port number can be rather predictable.
Client IPv4 address: This 32 bit field corresponds to the external
IPv4 address the NAT has assigned for the client port. In
principle, this can be any address in the assigned part of the
IPv4 unicast address space. However, if an attacker is looking
for the address of a specific Teredo client, they will have to
have the external IPv4 address pretty well narrowed down. Certain
IPv4 address ranges could also become well known for having a
higher concentration of Teredo clients, making it easier to find
an arbitrary Teredo client. These addresses could correspond to
large organizations that allow Teredo such as a university or
enterprise or to Internet Service Providers that only provide
their customers with RFC 1918 addresses.
Optimizations in scanning can also reduce the number of addresses
that need to be checked. For example, for addresses behind a cone
NAT, it would likely be easy to probe if a specific port number is
open on an IPv4 address, prior to trying to form a Teredo address for
that address and port.
Thaler, et al. Expires December 5, 2010 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Teredo Security Updates June 2010
Hence the Flags field specified in [RFC4380] section 4 is updated as
follows:
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|C|z|Random1|U|G| Random2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
C: This flag is specified in [RFC4380] and its use is modified in
Section 3.2 below.
z: This flag is reserved. It MUST be set to zero when the address is
constructed, as specified in [RFC4380].
Random1: MUST be set to a random value.
U: This flag is specified in [RFC4380].
G: This flag is specified in [RFC4380].
Random2: MUST be set to a random value.
3.2. Deprecation of Cone Bit
The qualification procedure is specified in [RFC4380] section 5.2.1,
and is modified as follows. Teredo clients SHOULD completely skip
the first phase of the qualification procedure and implement only the
second phase where it uses the Teredo link local address with the
cone bit set to zero. Consequently, a distinction between cone and
restricted NATs can no longer be made. Teredo communication will
still succeed, but at the expense of forcing peers to skip step 4 of
the sending details specified in [RFC4380]. This will result in the
same number of indirect bubbles being sent as if the other end were a
peer behind a restricted NAT. Even though the peer behind the cone
NAT does not need these indirect bubbles, it replies to these
indirect bubbles just like it would to any other indirect bubbles.
Skipping step 4 is already allowed for reliability reasons (as
specified in [RFC4380] section 5.2.4), and hence this does not break
interoperability, but the result of skipping the first phase of
qualification is to force that behavior (which is less efficient, but
potentially more reliable) to be taken by peers.
In addition, clients and relays SHOULD ignore the cone bit in the
address of a Teredo peer and treat it as if it were always clear, as
specified in [RFC4380] section 5.2.4 (last paragraph).
Teredo servers MUST NOT ignore the cone bit for the following
Thaler, et al. Expires December 5, 2010 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Teredo Security Updates June 2010
reasons.
o The cone bit in the IPv6 source address of a Router Solicitation
(RS) from a client controls what IPv4 source address the server
should use when sending a Router Advertisement (RA). If this
behavior is not preserved, legacy clients will conclude that they
are behind a cone NAT even when they are not (because the client
WILL receive the RA where previously it would not, since cone bit
set to 1 requires the server to respond from another IP address).
They will then set their cone bit and lose connectivity.
o When the Teredo server sends RAs (or bubbles if it's also a relay)
the cone bit in its own teredo address is set, indicating that it
doesn't require bubbles to reach it.
Thaler, et al. Expires December 5, 2010 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Teredo Security Updates June 2010
4. Security Considerations
The basic threat model for Teredo is described in detail in [RFC4380]
section 7, but briefly the goal is that a Teredo client should be as
secure as if a host were directly attached to an untrusted Internet
link. This document specifies updates to [RFC4380] that improve the
security of the base Teredo mechanism regarding specific threats.
IPv6 address scanning [RFC5157] by off-path attackers: The Teredo
IPv6 Address format defined in [RFC4380] section 4 makes it
relatively easy for a malicious user to conduct an address-scan to
determine IPv6 addresses by guessing the external (mapped) IPv4
address and port assigned to the Teredo client. The random address
bits guard against address-scanning risks by providing a range of
4096 IPv6 addresses per external IPv4 address/port. As a result,
even if a malicious user were able to determine the external (mapped)
IPv4 address and port assigned to the Teredo client, the malicious
user would still need to attack a range of 4,096 IPv6 addresses to
determine the actual Teredo IPv6 address of the client. Appendix B
compares the address prediction resistance of a Teredo address
following this specification to that of an address formed using
standard IPv6 Stateless Address Auto-configuration [RFC4862].
In order to prevent adversaries from easily guessing the values of
the random bits and hence the address, the Random1 and Random2 bits
in the Teredo Flags field MUST be constructed following the
recommendations for Random number generation as specified in
[NIST-RANDOM] and [RFC4086].
Opening a hole in an enterprise firewall
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-tunnel-security-concerns]: Teredo is NOT RECOMMENDED
as a solution for networks that wish to implement strict controls for
what traffic passes to and from the Internet. Administrators of such
networks may wish to filter all Teredo traffic at the boundaries of
their networks.
Thaler, et al. Expires December 5, 2010 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Teredo Security Updates June 2010
5. IANA Considerations
[RFC Editor: please remove this section prior to publication.]
This document has no IANA Actions.
Thaler, et al. Expires December 5, 2010 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Teredo Security Updates June 2010
6. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Remi Denis-Courmont, Fred Templin,
Jordi Palet Martinez, James Woodyatt, Christian Huitema, Tom Yu, Jari
Arkko, David Black, Tim Polk and Sean Turner for reviewing earlier
versions of the document and providing comments to make this document
better. The authors would also like to thank Alfred Hoenes for a
careful review of the document.
Thaler, et al. Expires December 5, 2010 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Teredo Security Updates June 2010
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4380] Huitema, C., "Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through
Network Address Translations (NATs)", RFC 4380,
February 2006.
7.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-tunnel-security-concerns]
Hoagland, J., Krishnan, S., and D. Thaler, "Security
Concerns With IP Tunneling",
draft-ietf-v6ops-tunnel-security-concerns-02 (work in
progress), March 2010.
[NIST-RANDOM]
"NIST SP 800-90, Recommendation for Random Number
Generation Using Deterministic Random Bit Generators",
March 2007, <http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/
800-90/SP800-90revised_March2007.pdf>.
[RFC4086] Eastlake, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker, "Randomness
Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086, June 2005.
[RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007.
[RFC5157] Chown, T., "IPv6 Implications for Network Scanning",
RFC 5157, March 2008.
Thaler, et al. Expires December 5, 2010 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Teredo Security Updates June 2010
Appendix A. Implementation Status
Deprecation of the cone bit as specified in this document is
implemented in Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008.
The random flags specified in this document are implemented in
Windows Vista SP1 and Windows Server 2008.
All Windows implementations automatically disable Teredo if they
detect that they are on a managed network with a domain controller.
Thaler, et al. Expires December 5, 2010 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Teredo Security Updates June 2010
Appendix B. Resistance to address prediction
This section compares the address prediction resistance of a Teredo
address as compared to an address formed using IPv6 stateless address
auto-configuration (SLAAC) [RFC4862].
Let's assume that the attacker knows Teredo Client's external IPv4
address and Ethernet card's vendor. Since the attacker knows the
Client's external IPv4 address he does not have to search this space.
The attacker does not know the external port (16 bits) and the value
of the random bits (12 bits) and he has to search this space. This
gives the attacker a total search space of 28 bits (16+12). This
compares very favorably with the 24 bits of search space required to
find an address configured using SLAAC (when the Ethernet card's
vendor is known) as described in Section 2.3 of [RFC5157]. Without
the 12 random bits the search space is limited to only 16 bits and
this is significantly worse than the 24 bits of search space provided
by SLAAC.
As the knowledge of the attacker decreases the number of bits of
search space in both the cases is likely to increase in a relatively
similar fashion. The predictability of Teredo addresses will stay
comparable to that of SLAAC addresses with the added 12 bits of
search space, but will be significantly worse without the random
bits.
Thaler, et al. Expires December 5, 2010 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Teredo Security Updates June 2010
Authors' Addresses
Dave Thaler
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
USA
Phone: +1 425 703 8835
Email: dthaler@microsoft.com
Suresh Krishnan
Ericsson
8400 Decarie Blvd.
Town of Mount Royal, QC
Canada
Phone: +1 514 345 7900 x42871
Email: suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com
James Hoagland
Symantec Corporation
350 Ellis St.
Mountain View, CA 94043
US
Email: Jim_Hoagland@symantec.com
URI: http://symantec.com/
Thaler, et al. Expires December 5, 2010 [Page 15]