TCP Maintenance and Minor F. Gont
Extensions (tcpm) UTN/FRH
Internet-Draft December 8, 2004
Expires: June 8, 2005
ICMP attacks against TCP
draft-gont-tcpm-icmp-attacks-02.txt
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
of section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each
author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of
which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of
which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
RFC 3668. This document may not be modified, and derivative works of
it may not be created, except to publish it as an RFC and to
translate it into languages other than English.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as
Internet-Drafts.
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 current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 8, 2005.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).
Abstract
This document discusses the use of the Internet Control Message
Protocol (ICMP) to perform a variety of attacks against the
Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) and other similar protocols. It
proposes several counter-measures to eliminate or minimize the impact
of these attacks.
Gont Expires June 8, 2005 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft ICMP attacks against TCP December 2004
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1 The Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) . . . . . . . 3
2.1.1 ICMP for IP version 4 (ICMP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.2 ICMP for IP version 6 (ICMPv6) . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2 Handling of ICMP errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. ICMP attacks against TCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Constraints in the possible solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. General counter-measures against ICMP attacks . . . . . . . . 7
5.1 TCP sequence number checking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2 TCP Ackowledgement number checking . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.3 Port randomization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.4 Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.5 Filtering ICMP errors based on the ICMP payload . . . . . 9
6. Blind connection-reset attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2 Attack-specific counter-measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2.1 Changing the reaction to hard errors . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2.2 Delaying the connection-reset . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Blind throughput-reduction attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1 ICMP Source Quench attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1.1 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1.2 Attack-specific counter-measures . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.2 ICMP attack against the PMTU Discovery mechanism . . . . . 13
7.2.1 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.2.2 Attack-specific counter-measures . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Future work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
A. Changes from draft-gont-tcpm-icmp-attacks-01 . . . . . . . . . 17
B. Changes from draft-gont-tcpm-icmp-attacks-00 . . . . . . . . . 18
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 19
Gont Expires June 8, 2005 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft ICMP attacks against TCP December 2004
1. Introduction
Recently, awareness has been raised about several threats against the
TCP [1] protocol, which include blind connection-reset attacks [12].
These attacks are based on sending forged TCP segments to any of the
TCP endpoints, requiring the attacker to be able to guess the
four-tuple that identifies the connection to be attacked.
While these attacks were known by the research community, they were
considered to be unfeasible. However, increases in bandwidth
availability, and the use of larger TCP windows [13] have made these
attacks feasible. Several general solutions have been proposed to
either eliminate or minimize the impact of these attacks
[14][15][16]. For protecting BGP sessions, specifically, a
counter-measure had already been documented in [17], which defines a
new TCP option that allows a sending TCP to include a MD5 [18]
signature in each transmitted segment.
All these counter-measures address attacks that require an attacker
to send spoofed TCP segments to the attacked host. However, there is
still a possibility for performing a number of attacks against the
TCP protocol, by means of ICMP [2]. These attacks include, among
others, blind connection-reset attacks.
This document aims to raise awareness of the use of ICMP to perform a
number of attacks against TCP, and proposes several counter-measures
that can eliminate or minimize the impact of these attacks.
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 [3].
2. Background
2.1 The Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP)
The Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) is used in the Internet
Architecture to perform the fault-isolation function, that is, the
group of actions that hosts and routers take to determine that there
is some network failure [19].
When an intermediate router detects a network problem while trying to
forward an IP packet, it will usually send an ICMP error message to
the source host, to raise awareness of the network problem. In the
same way, there are a number of cases in which an end-system may
generate an ICMP error message when it finds a problem while
processing a datagram. These error messages are notified to the
corresponding transport-protocol instance.
Gont Expires June 8, 2005 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft ICMP attacks against TCP December 2004
When the transport protocol is notified of the error condition, it
will perform a fault recovery function. That is, it will try to
survive the network failure.
In the case of TCP, the typical fault recovery policy is as follows:
o If the network problem being reported is a hard error, abort the
corresponding connection.
o If the network problem being reported is a soft error, just record
this information, and repeatedly retransmit the segment until
either it gets acknowledged, or the connection times out.
Some stacks honor hard errors only for connections in any of the
synchronized states (ESTABLISHED, FIN-WAIT-1, FIN-WAIT-2, CLOSE-WAIT,
CLOSING, LAST-ACK or TIME-WAIT).
2.1.1 ICMP for IP version 4 (ICMP)
[2] specifies the Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) to be used
with the Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4). It defines, among other
things, a number of error messages that can be used by end-systems
and intermediate systems to report network errors to the sending
host.
The Host Requirements RFC [4] states that ICMP error messages of type
3 (Destination Unreachable) codes 2 (protocol unreachable), 3 (port
unreachable), and 4 (fragmentation needed and DF bit set) should be
considered hard errors. Thus, any of these ICMP messages could
elicit a connection abort.
The ICMP specification also defines the ICMP Source Quench message
(type 4, code 0), which is meant to provide a mechanism for flow
control and congestion control. The Requirements for IP Version 4
Routers RFC [5], however, states that experience has shown this ICMP
message is ineffective for handling these issues.
[6] defines a mechanism called "Path MTU Discovery" (PMTUD), which
makes use of ICMP error messages of type 3 (Destination Unreachable),
code 4 (fragmentation needed and DF bit set) to allow hosts to
determine the MTU of an arbitrary internet path. For obvious
reasons, those systems implementing the PMTUD do not treat ICMP error
messages of type 3 code 4 as hard errors.
Appendix D of [7] provides information about which ICMP error
messages are produced by hosts, intermediate routers, or both.
Gont Expires June 8, 2005 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft ICMP attacks against TCP December 2004
2.1.2 ICMP for IP version 6 (ICMPv6)
[8] specifies the Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) to be
used with the Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) [9].
Even though ICMPv6 didn't exist when [4] was written, one could
extrapolate the concept of "hard errors" to ICMPv6 Type 1
(Destination Unreachable) codes 1 (communication with destination
administratively prohibited) and 4 (port unreachable). Thus, any of
these messages could elicit a connection abort.
ICMPv6 defines the "Packet Too Big" (type 2, code 0) error message,
that is analogous to the ICMP "fragmentation needed and DF bit set"
(type 3, code 4) error message. For IPv6, intermediate systems do
not fragment IP packets. Thus, there's an implicit "don't fragment"
bit set in every IPv6 datagram sent on a network. Therefore, hosts
do not treat ICMPv6 "Packet Too Big" messages as a hard errors, but
use them to discover the MTU of the corresponding internet path, as
part of the Path MTU Discovery mechanism for IP Version 6 [10].
Appendix D of [7] provides information about which ICMPv6 error
messages are produced by hosts, intermediate routers, or both.
2.2 Handling of ICMP errors
The Host Requirements RFC [4] states that a TCP instance should be
notified of ICMP error messages received for its corresponding
connection.
In order to allow ICMP messages to be demultiplexed by the receiving
host, part of the orignal packet that elicited the message is
included in the payload of the ICMP error message. Thus, the
receiving host can use that information to match the ICMP error to
the instance of the transport protocol that elicited it.
Neither the Host Requirements RFC nor the original TCP specification
[1] recommend any security checks on the received ICMP messages.
Thus, as long as the ICMP payload contains the correct four-tuple
that identifies the communication instance, it will be processed by
the corresponding transport-protocol instance, and the corresponding
action will be performed.
Therefore, an attacker could send a spoofed ICMP message to the
attacked host, and, as long as he is able to guess the four-tuple
that identifies the communication instance to be attacked, he can use
ICMP to perform a variety of attacks.
As discussed in [12], there are a number of scenarios in which an
Gont Expires June 8, 2005 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft ICMP attacks against TCP December 2004
attacker may be able to know or guess this four-tuple. Furthermore,
it must be noted that most Internet services use the so-called
"well-known" ports, so that only the client port would need to be
guessed. In the event that an attacker had no knowledge about the
range of port numbers used by clients, this would mean that an
attacker would need to send, at most, 65536 packets to perform any of
the attacks described in this document.
It is clear that security checks should be performed on the received
ICMP error messages, to mitigate the impact of the attacks described
in this document.
3. ICMP attacks against TCP
ICMP messages can be used to perform a variety of attacks. These
attacks have been discussed by the research community to a large
extent.
Some TCP/IP implementations have added security checks on the
received ICMP error messages to minimize the impact of these attacks.
However, as there has not been any official proposal about what would
be the best way to deal with these attacks, these security checks
have not been widely implemented.
Section 4 of this document discusses the constraints in the general
counter-measures that can be implemented against the attacks
described in this document. Section 5 proposes several general
conter-measures that apply to all the ICMP attacks described in this
document. Finally, Section 6 and Section 7 discuss a variety of ICMP
attacks that can be performed against TCP, and propose
attack-specific counter-measures that eliminate or mitigate them.
These attack-specific counter-measures are meant to be additional
counter-measures to the ones proposed in Section 5. In particular,
all TCP implementations SHOULD perform the TCP sequence number
checking described in Section 5.1.
4. Constraints in the possible solutions
For ICMPv4, [2] states that the internet header plus the first 64
bits of the packet that elicited the ICMP message are to be included
in the payload of the ICMP error message. Thus, it is assumed that
all data needed to identify a transport protocol instance and process
the ICMP error message is contained in the first 64 bits of the
transport protocol header. [4] states that "the Internet header and
at least the first 8 data octets of the datagram that triggered the
error" are to be included in the payload of ICMP error messages, and
that "more than 8 octets MAY be sent", thus requiring implementations
to include more data from the original packet than that required by
Gont Expires June 8, 2005 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft ICMP attacks against TCP December 2004
the original ICMP specification. The "Requirements for IP Version 4
Routers RFC" [5] states that ICMP error messages "SHOULD contain as
much of the original datagram as possible without the length of the
ICMP datagram exceeding 576 bytes".
Thus, for ICMP messages generated by hosts, we can only expect to get
the entire IP header of the original packet, plus the first 64 bits
of its payload. For TCP, that means that the only fields that will
be included are: the source port number, the destination port number,
and the 32-bit TCP sequence number. This clearly imposes a
constraint on the possible checks we can perform, as there is not
much information avalable on which to perform these security checks.
While there exists a proposal to recommend hosts to include more data
from the original datagram in the payload of ICMP error messages
[20], and some TCP/IP implementations already do this, we cannot yet
propose any work-around based on checks performed on any data past
the first 64 bits of the payload of the original IP datagram that
elicited the ICMP error message. Thus, the only check that can be
performed on the ICMP error message is that of the TCP sequence
number contained in the payload.
As discussed above, for those ICMP error messages generated by
routers, we can expect to receive much more octets from the original
packet than just the entire IP header and the first 64 bits of the
transport protocol header. Therefore, not only can hosts check the
TCP sequence number contained in the payload of the ICMP error
message, but they could perform further checks such as checking the
TCP acknowledgement number, as discussed in Section 5.2.
For ICMPv6, the payload of ICMPv6 error messages includes as many
octets of the IPv6 packet that elicited the ICMPv6 error message as
will fit without making the resulting ICMPv6 packet exceed the
minimum IPv6 MTU (1280 octets) [8]. Thus, further checks (as those
described above) can be performed on the received ICMP error
messages.
5. General counter-measures against ICMP attacks
There are a number of counter-measures that can be implemented to
eliminate or mitigate the attacks discussed in this document. Rather
than being alternative counter-measures, they can be implemented
together to increase the protection against these attacks.
5.1 TCP sequence number checking
TCP SHOULD check that the TCP sequence number contained in the
payload of the ICMP error message is within the range SND.UNA =<
SEG.SEQ < SND.NXT. This means that the sequence number should be
Gont Expires June 8, 2005 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft ICMP attacks against TCP December 2004
within the range of the data already sent but not yet acknowledged.
If an ICMP error message doesn't pass this check, it SHOULD be
discarded.
Even if an attacker were able to guess the four-tuple that identifies
the TCP connection, this additional check would reduce the
possibility of considering a spoofed ICMP packet as valid to
Flight_Size/2^^32 (where Flight_Size is the number of data bytes
already sent to the remote peer, but not yet acknowledged [21]). For
connections in the SYN-SENT or SYN-RECEIVED states, this would reduce
the possibility of considering a spoofed ICMP packet as valid to
1/2^^32. For a TCP endpoint with no data "in flight", this would
completely eliminate the possibility of success of these attacks.
5.2 TCP Ackowledgement number checking
As discussed in Section 4, for those ICMP error messages that are
generated by intermediate routers, additional checks can be
performed. TCP SHOULD check that the TCP Acknowledgement number
contained in the payload of the ICMP error message is withing the
range SEG.ACK <= RCV.NXT. This means that the TCP Acknowledgement
number should correspond to data that have already been acknowledged.
This would reduce the possibility of considering a spoofed ICMP
packet as valid by a factor of two.
5.3 Port randomization
As discussed in the previous sections, in order to perform any of the
attacks described in this document, an attacker needs to guess (or
know) the four-tuple that identifies the connection to be attacked.
Randomizing the ephemeral ports used by the clients would make it
harder for an attacker to perform any of the attacks discussed in
this document.
[22] discusses a number of algorithms to randomize the ephemeral
ports used by clients.
Also, a proposal exists to enable TCP to reassign a well-known port
number to a random value [23].
5.4 Authentication
Hosts could require ICMP error messages to be authenticated [7], in
order to act upon them. However, while this requirement could make
sense for those ICMP error messages sent by hosts, it would not be
feasible for those ICMP error messages generated by intermediate
routers.
Gont Expires June 8, 2005 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft ICMP attacks against TCP December 2004
[7] contains a discussion on the authentication of ICMP messages.
5.5 Filtering ICMP errors based on the ICMP payload
As discussed in Section 4, the source address of ICMP error messages
does not need to be spoofed to perform the attacks described in this
draft. Thus, simple filtering based on the source address of ICMP
error messages does not serve as a counter-measure against these
attacks. However, a more advanced packet filtering could be used as
a counter-measure. Systems performing such advanced filtering would
look at the payload of the ICMP error messages, and would perform
ingress and egress packet filtering based on the source IP address of
the IP header contained in the payload of the ICMP error message. As
the source IP address contained in the payload of the ICMP error
message does need to be spoofed to perform the attacks described in
this document, this kind of advanced filtering would serve as a
counter-measure against these attacks.
6. Blind connection-reset attacks
6.1 Description
The Host Requirements RFC [4] states that a host SHOULD abort the
corresponding connection when receiving an ICMP error message that
indicates a hard error.
Thus, an attacker could use ICMP to perform a blind connection-reset
attack. That is, even being off-path, an attacker could reset any
TCP connection taking place. In order to perform such an attack, an
attacker would send any ICMP error message that indicates a "hard
error", to either of the two TCP endpoints of the connection.
Because of TCP's fault recovery policy, the connection would be
immediately aborted.
As discussed in Section 2.2, all an attacker needs to know to perform
such an attack is the socket pair that identifies the TCP connection
to be attacked. In some scenarios, the IP addresses and port numbers
in use may be easily guessed or known to the attacker [12].
Some stacks are known to extrapolate ICMP errors across TCP
connections, increasing the impact of this attack, as a single ICMP
packet could bring down all the TCP connections between the
corresponding peers.
There are some points to be considered about this type of attack:
o The source address of the ICMP error message need not be forged.
Thus, simple filtering based on the source address of ICMP packets
Gont Expires June 8, 2005 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft ICMP attacks against TCP December 2004
would not serve as a counter-measure against this type of attack.
o Even if TCP itself were protected against the blind
connection-reset attack described in [12] and [14], the type of
attack described in this document could still succeed.
6.2 Attack-specific counter-measures
6.2.1 Changing the reaction to hard errors
As discussed in Section 6.1, hosts MUST NOT extrapolate ICMP errors
across TCP connections.
An analysis of the circumstances in which ICMP messages that indicate
hard errors may be received can shed some light to minimize (or even
eliminate) the impact of blind connection-reset attacks.
ICMP type 3 (Destination Unreachable), code 2 (protocol unreachable)
For ICMP messages of type 3 (Destination Unreachable) code 2
(protocol unreachable), specifically, the Host Requirements RFC
states that even those transport protocols that have their own
mechanisms to indicate that a port is unreachable MUST accept
these ICMP error messages for the same purpose. That is, they
MUST abort the corresponding connection when an ICMP port
unreachable message is received.
This ICMP error message indicates that the host sending the ICMP
error message received a packet meant for a transport protocol it
does not support. For connection-oriented protocols such as TCP,
one could expect to receive such an error as the result of a
connection establishment attempt. However, it would be strange to
get such an error during the life of a connection, as this would
indicate that support for that transport protocol has been removed
from the host sending the error message during the life of the
corresponding connection. Thus, it would be fair to treat ICMP
protocol unreachable error messages as soft errors (or completely
ignore them) if they are meant for connections that are in
synchronized states. For TCP, this means one would treat ICMP
port unreachable error messages as soft errors (or completely
ignore them) if they are meant for connections that are in the
ESTABLISHED, FIN-WAIT-1, FIN-WAIT-2, CLOSE-WAIT, CLOSING, LAST-ACK
or TIME-WAIT states.
ICMP type 3 (Destination Unreachable), code 3 (port unreachable)
This error message indicates that the host sending the ICMP error
Gont Expires June 8, 2005 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft ICMP attacks against TCP December 2004
message received a packet meant for a socket (IP address, port
number) on which there is no process listening. Those transport
protocols which have their own mechanisms for notifying this
condition should not be receiving these error messages. However,
the Host Requirements RFC [4] states that even those transport
protocols that have their own mechanism for notifying the sender
that a port is unreachable MUST nevertheless accept an ICMP Port
Unreachable for the same purpose. For security reasons, it would
be fair to treat ICMP port unreachable messages as soft errors (or
completely ignore them) when they are meant for protocols that
have their own mechanism for reporting this condition.
ICMP type 3 (Destination Unreachable), code 4 (fragmentation needed
and DF bit set)
This error message indicates that an intermediate node needed to
fragment a datagram, but the DF (Don't Fragment) bit in the IP
header was set. Those systems that do not implement the PMTUD
mechanism should not be sending their IP packets with the DF bit
set, and thus should not be receiving these ICMP error messages.
Thus, it would be fair for them to completely ignore this ICMP
error message. On the other hand, and for obvious reasons, those
systems implementing the Path-MTU Discovery (PMTUD) mechanism [6]
should not abort the corresponding connection when such an ICMP
error message is received.
ICMPv6 type 1 (Destination Unreachable), code 1 (communication with
destination administratively prohibited)
This error message indicates that the destination is unreachable
because of an administrative policy. For connection-oriented
protocols such as TCP, one could expect to receive such an error
as the result of a connection-establishment attempt. Receiving
such an error for a connection in any of the synchronized states
would mean that the administrative policy changed during the life
of the connection. Therefore, while it would be possible for a
firewall to be reconfigured during the life of a connection, it
would be fair, for security reasons, to ignore these messages for
connections that are in the ESTABLISHED, FIN-WAIT-1, FIN-WAIT-2,
CLOSE-WAIT, CLOSING, LAST-ACK or TIME-WAIT states.
ICMPv6 type 1 (Destination Unreachable), code 4 (port unreachable)
This error message is analogous to the ICMP type 3 (Destination
unreachable), code 3 (Port unreachable) error message discussed
above. Therefore, the same considerations apply.
Gont Expires June 8, 2005 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft ICMP attacks against TCP December 2004
6.2.2 Delaying the connection-reset
An alternative counter-measure could be to delay the conenction
reset. Rather than immediately aborting a connection, a TCP could
abort a connection only after an ICMP error message indicating a hard
error has been received a specified number of times, and the
corresponding data have already been retransmitted more than some
specified number of times.
For example, hosts could abort connections only after a fourth ICMP
error message indicating a hard error is received, and the
corresponding data have already been retransmitted more than six
times.
The rationale behind this proposed fix is that if a host can make
forward progress on a connection, it can completely disregard the
"hard errors" being indicated by the received ICMP error messages.
While this counter-measure could be useful, we think that the
counter-measure discussed in Section 6.2.1 is more simple to
implement and provides increased protection against this type of
attack.
7. Blind throughput-reduction attacks
The following subsections discuss a number of attacks that can be
performed against TCP to reduce the throughput of a TCP connection.
While these attacks do not reset the corresponding TCP connection,
they may reduce their throughput to such an extent that they may
become practically unusable.
7.1 ICMP Source Quench attack
7.1.1 Description
The Host requirements RFC states hosts MUST react to ICMP Source
Quench messages by slowing transmission on the connection. Thus, an
attacker could send ICMP Source Quench (type 4, code 0) messages to a
TCP endpoint to make it reduce the rate at which it sends data to the
other party. While this would not reset the connection, it would
certainly degrade the performance of the data transfer taking place
over it.
7.1.2 Attack-specific counter-measures
The Host Requirements RFC [4] states that hosts MUST react to ICMP
Source Quench messages by slowing transmission on the connection.
However, as discussed in the Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers
Gont Expires June 8, 2005 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft ICMP attacks against TCP December 2004
RFC [5], research seems to suggest ICMP Source Quench is an
ineffective (and unfair) antidote for congestion. Thus, we recommend
hosts to completely ignore ICMP Source Quench messages.
7.2 ICMP attack against the PMTU Discovery mechanism
7.2.1 Description
When one IP host has a large amount of data to send to another host,
the data will be transmitted as a series of IP datagrams. It is
usually preferable that these datagrams be of the largest size that
does not require fragmentation anywhere along the path from the
source to the destination. This datagram size is referred to as the
Path MTU (PMTU), and is equal to the minimum of the MTUs of each hop
in the path [6].
A technique called "Path MTU Discovery mechanism" (PMTUD) lets IP
hosts determine the Path MTU of an arbitrary internet path. [6] and
[10] specify the PMTUD mechanism for IPv4 and IPv6, respectively.
The PMTUD mechanism for IPv4 uses the Don't Fragment (DF) bit in the
IP header to dynamically discover the Path MTU. The basic idea
behind the PMTUD mechanism is that a source host assumes that the MTU
of the path is the MTU of its first hop, and sends all its datagrams
with the DF bit set. If any of the datagrams is too large to be
forwarded without fragmentation by some intermediate router, the
router will discard the corresponding datagram, and will return an
ICMP "Destination Unreacheable" (type 3) "fragmentation neeed and DF
set" (code 4) error message to sending host. This message will
report the MTU of the constricting hop, so that the sending host
reduces the assumed Path-MTU.
For IPv6, intermediate systems do not fragment packets. Thus,
there's an "implicit" DF bit set in every packet sent on a network.
If any of the datagrams is too large to be forwarded without
fragmentation by some intermediate router, the router will discard
the corresponding datagram, and will return an ICMPv6 "Packet Too
Big" (type 2, code 0) error message to sending host. This message
will report the MTU of the constricting hop, so that the sending host
can reduce the assumed Path-MTU accordingly.
As discussed in both [6] and [10], the PMTUD can be used to attack
TCP. An attacker could reduce the throughput of a TCP connection by
forging ICMP "Destination Unreachable, fragmentation needed and DF
set" packets (or their IPv6 counterpart), and making these packets
report a low MTU.
For IPv4, this reported Next-Hop MTU could be as low as 68 octets, as
Gont Expires June 8, 2005 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft ICMP attacks against TCP December 2004
[11] requires every internet module to be able to forward a datagram
of 68 octets without further fragmentation. For IPv6, the reported
Next-Hop MTU could be as low as 1280 octets (the minimum IPv6 MTU)
[9].
Thus, this attack could considerably readuce the throughput that can
be achieved with the attacked TCP connection.
7.2.2 Attack-specific counter-measures
An analogous counter-measure to that described in Section 6.2.2 could
be implemented to greatly minimize the impact of this attack.
For IPv4, this would mean that upon receipt of an ICMP "fragmentation
needed and DF bit set" error message, TCP would just record this
information, and would honor it only when it had received a specified
number of ICMP "fragmentation needed and DF bit set" messages, and
provided the corresponding data had already been retransmitted a
specified number of times.
For IPv6, the same mechanism would be implemented ICMPv6 "Packet Too
Big" error messages.
Henceforth, we will refer to both ICMP "fragmentation needed and DF
bit set" and ICMPv6 "Packet Too Big" messages as "ICMP Packet Too
Big" messages.
To implement the proposed fix, two new parameters would be introduced
to TCP: MAXPKTTOOBIG, and MAXSEGREXMIT. MAXPKTTOOBIG would specify
the number of times an ICMP "Packet Too Big" must be received before
it can be honored to change the Path-MTU. MAXSEGREXMIT would specify
the number of times a given segment must be retransmitted before an
ICMP "Packet Too Big" error message can be honored.
Two variables would be needed to implement the proposed fix:
npkttoobig, and nsegrexmit. npkttoobig would be initialized to zero,
and would be incremented by one everytime a valid ICMP "Packet Too
Big" error message is received. It would be reset to zero everytime
an ICMP "Packet Too Big" error message is honored to change the
assumed Path-MTU for given internet path. nsegrexmit would be
initialized to zero, and would be incremented by one everytime the
corresponding segment is retransmitted.
Thus, the Path-MTU for a given internet path would be changed only
when a ICMP "Packet Too Big" is received, provided npkttoobig >=
MAXPKTTOOBIG and nsegrexmit >= MAXSEGREXMIT.
The rationale behind this proposed fix is that if there is progress
Gont Expires June 8, 2005 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft ICMP attacks against TCP December 2004
on the connection, ICMP "Packet Too Big" messages must be a false
claim.
MAXPKTTOOBIG and MAXSEGREXMIT might be a function of the Next-Hop MTU
claimed in the received ICMP "Packet Too Big" message. That is,
higher values for MAXPKTTOOBIG and MAXSEGREXMIT could be required
when the received ICMP "Packet Too Big" message claims a Next-Hop MTU
that is bellow some specified value.
As discussed in Section 7.2.1, hosts should impose lower limits in
the reported Next-Hop MTU values they honor. For example, for IPv4
this lower limit could be safely raised to 296 octets, the MTU for
Point-To-Point (low delay) links [6]. This lower limit could be
probably raised to a higher value, such as 500 octets.
A mechanism that allows hosts to determine the Path-MTU without the
use of ICMP has been is described in [24].
8. Future work
The same considerations discussed in this document should be applied
to other similar protocols.
9. Security Considerations
This document describes the use of ICMP error messages to perform a
number of attacks against the TCP protocol, and proposes a number of
counter-measures that either eliminate or reduce the impact of these
attacks.
10. Acknowledgements
This document was inspired by Mika Liljeberg, while discussing some
issues related to [25] by private e-mail. The author would like to
thank James Carlson, Alan Cox, Juan Fraschini, Markus Friedl,
Guillermo Gont, Vivek Kakkar, Michael Kerrisk, Mika Liljeberg, David
Miller, Eloy Paris, Kacheong Poon, Andrew Powell, and Pekka Savola
for contributing many valuable comments.
The author wishes to express deep and heartfelt gratitude to Jorge
Oscar Gont and Nelida Garcia, for their precious motivation and
guidance.
11. References
11.1 Normative References
[1] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC 793,
Gont Expires June 8, 2005 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft ICMP attacks against TCP December 2004
September 1981.
[2] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5, RFC
792, September 1981.
[3] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[4] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Communication
Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989.
[5] Baker, F., "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers", RFC 1812,
June 1995.
[6] Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191,
November 1990.
[7] Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998.
[8] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Internet Control Message Protocol
(ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)
Specification", RFC 2463, December 1998.
[9] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6)
Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[10] McCann, J., Deering, S. and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery for
IP version 6", RFC 1981, August 1996.
[11] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September
1981.
11.2 Informative References
[12] Watson, P., "Slipping in the Window: TCP Reset Attacks", 2004
CanSecWest Conference , 2004.
[13] Jacobson, V., Braden, B. and D. Borman, "TCP Extensions for
High Performance", RFC 1323, May 1992.
[14] Stewart, R., "Transmission Control Protocol security
considerations", draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure-02 (work in
progress), November 2004.
[15] Touch, J., "ANONsec: Anonymous IPsec to Defend Against Spoofing
Attacks", draft-touch-anonsec-00 (work in progress), May 2004.
Gont Expires June 8, 2005 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft ICMP attacks against TCP December 2004
[16] Poon, K., "Use of TCP timestamp option to defend against blind
spoofing attack", draft-poon-tcp-tstamp-mod-01 (work in
progress), October 2004.
[17] Heffernan, A., "Protection of BGP Sessions via the TCP MD5
Signature Option", RFC 2385, August 1998.
[18] Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm", RFC 1321, April
1992.
[19] Clark, D., "Fault isolation and recovery", RFC 816, July 1982.
[20] Gont, F., "Increasing the payload of ICMP error messages",
(work in progress) draft-gont-icmp-payload-00.txt, 2004.
[21] Allman, M., Paxson, V. and W. Stevens, "TCP Congestion
Control", RFC 2581, April 1999.
[22] Larsen, M., "Port Randomisation",
draft-larsen-tsvwg-port-randomisation-00 (work in progress),
October 2004.
[23] Shepard, T., "Reassign Port Number option for TCP",
draft-shepard-tcp-reassign-port-number-00 (work in progress),
July 2004.
[24] Mathis, M., "Path MTU Discovery", draft-ietf-pmtud-method-03
(work in progress), October 2004.
[25] Gont, F., "TCP's Reaction to Soft Errors",
draft-gont-tcpm-tcp-soft-errors-01 (work in progress), October
2004.
Author's Address
Fernando Gont
Universidad Tecnologica Nacional
Evaristo Carriego 2644
Haedo, Provincia de Buenos Aires 1706
Argentina
Phone: +54 11 4650 8472
EMail: fernando@gont.com.ar
Appendix A. Changes from draft-gont-tcpm-icmp-attacks-01
Gont Expires June 8, 2005 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft ICMP attacks against TCP December 2004
o The document was restructured for easier reading.
o A discussion of ICMPv6 was added in several sections of the
document
o Added Section 5.2
o Added Section 5.5
o Added Section 7.2
o Fixed typo in the ICMP types, in several places
o Fixed typo in the TCP sequence number check formula
o Miscellaneous editorial changes
Appendix B. Changes from draft-gont-tcpm-icmp-attacks-00
o Added Section ChangingHandling
o Added a summary of the relevant RFCs in several sections
o Miscellaneous editorial changes
Gont Expires June 8, 2005 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft ICMP attacks against TCP December 2004
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Gont Expires June 8, 2005 [Page 19]
