Network Working Group D. Thaler
Internet-Draft Microsoft
Intended status: Informational March 3, 2014
Expires: September 4, 2014
Reflections On Host Firewalls
draft-iab-host-firewalls-02.txt
Abstract
In today's Internet, the need for firewalls is generally accepted in
the industry and indeed firewalls are widely deployed in practice.
Often the result is that software may be running and potentially
consuming resources, but then communication is blocked by a firewall.
It's taken for granted that this end state is either desirable or the
best that can be achieved in practice, rather than (for example) an
end state where the relevant software is not running or is running in
a way that would not result in unwanted communication. In this
document, we explore the issues behind these assumptions and provide
suggestions on improving the architecture going forward.
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 September 4, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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
Thaler Expires September 4, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Host Firewalls March 2014
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
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Firewall Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Category 1: Attack Surface Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Stealth Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Discussion of Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.1. Fix the Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.2. Don't Use the Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.3. Run the Software Behind a Firewall . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Category 2: Security Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Discussion of Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.1. Security Policies in Applications . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.2. Security Policies in Firewalls . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1.3. Security Policies in a Service . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. IAB Members at the Time of This Writing . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
[I-D.iab-filtering-considerations] discusses the issue of blocking or
filtering abusive or objectionable content and communications, and
the effects on the overall Internet architecture. This document
complements that discussion by focusing on the architectural effects
of host firewalls on hosts and applications.
"Behavior of and Requirements for Internet Firewalls" [RFC2979]
provides an introduction to firewalls and the requirement for
transparency in particular, stating:
The introduction of a firewall and any associated tunneling or
access negotiation facilities MUST NOT cause unintended failures
of legitimate and standards-compliant usage that would work were
the firewall not present.
Thaler Expires September 4, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Host Firewalls March 2014
Many firewalls today do not follow that guidance today, such as by
blocking traffic containing IP options or IPv6 extension headers (see
[RFC7045] for more discussion).
In Section 2.1 of "Reflections on Internet Transparency" [RFC4924],
the IAB provided additional thoughts on firewalls and their impact on
the Internet architecture, including issues around disclosure
obligations and complexity as applications evolve to circumvent
firewalls. This document extends that discussion with additional
considerations.
Traditionally, firewalls have been about arming customers to protect
against bugs in applications and services. This document discusses a
number of fundamental questions such as who a firewall is meant to
protect from what. It does so primarily, though not exclusively,
from an end system perspective with a focus on host firewalls in
particular.
The Internet Security Glossary [RFC4949] defines a firewall as
follows.
1. (I) An internetwork gateway that restricts data communication
traffic to and from one of the connected networks (the one said to
be "inside" the firewall) and thus protects that network's system
resources against threats from the other network (the one that is
said to be "outside" the firewall). (See: guard, security
gateway.)
2. (O) A device or system that controls the flow of traffic
between networks using differing security postures. [SP41]
Tutorial: A firewall typically protects a smaller, secure network
(such as a corporate LAN, or even just one host) from a larger
network (such as the Internet). The firewall is installed at the
point where the networks connect, and the firewall applies policy
rules to control traffic that flows in and out of the protected
network.
A firewall is not always a single computer. For example, a
firewall may consist of a pair of filtering routers and one or
more proxy servers running on one or more bastion hosts, all
connected to a small, dedicated LAN (see: buffer zone) between the
two routers. The external router blocks attacks that use IP to
break security (IP address spoofing, source routing, packet
fragments), while proxy servers block attacks that would exploit a
vulnerability in a higher-layer protocol or service. The internal
router blocks traffic from leaving the protected network except
through the proxy servers. The difficult part is defining
Thaler Expires September 4, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Host Firewalls March 2014
criteria by which packets are denied passage through the firewall,
because a firewall not only needs to keep unauthorized traffic
(i.e., intruders) out, but usually also needs to let authorized
traffic pass both in and out.
Informally, most people would tend to think of a firewall as
"something that blocks unwanted traffic" (see [RFC4948] for a
discussion on many types of unwanted traffic). A fundamental
question is, however: "unwanted by whom?"
Possible answers include end users, application developers, network
administrators, host administrators, firewall vendors, and content
providers. We will exclude by definition the sender of the traffic
in question, since the sender would generally want such traffic to be
delivered. Still, the other entities have different, and often
conflicting, desires which means that a type of traffic might be
wanted by one entity and unwanted by another entity. Thus, not
surprisingly, there exist various types of firewalls, and various
types of "arms race" as we will discuss in Section 4.1.2.
1.1. Terminology
In this document we distinguish between a "host firewall" which
simply intends to protect the single computer on which it runs, and a
"network firewall" which is located in the network and intends to
protect the network and any hosts behind it.
A Network Address Translator (NAT) is also often viewed, or even
marketed, as a type of network firewall; Section 2.2 of [RFC4864]
addresses this misconception, but nevertheless some of the same
observations in the present document may also apply to NATs.
Sandboxed environments, such as those provided by browsers, can also
be thought of as a type of host firewall in the more general sense.
For example, a cross-site check in a browser can be thought of as a
mechanism to block unwanted outbound traffic per a "same origin
policy" where a script can only communicate with the "site" from
which the script was obtained, for some definition of site such as
the scheme and authority in a URI.
The term "application" is used in this document generically to apply
to any component that can receive traffic. In this sense, it could
refer to a process running on a computer (including a system service)
or even to a portion of a TCP/IP stack itself, such as a component
that responds to pings.
Thaler Expires September 4, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Host Firewalls March 2014
2. Firewall Rules
Desires for wanted or unwanted traffic can be expressed in terms of
"allow" vs. "block" rules, with some way to resolve conflicting
rules. Many firewalls are actually implemented in terms of such
rules. Figure 1 shows some typical sources of such rules.
Source | Consumer | Consumer | Enterprise | Enterprise
| Scenario | Scenario | Scenario | Scenario
| Host | Network | Host | Network
| Firewall | Firewall | Firewall | Firewall
----------+------------+-------------+------------+------------
End user | Sometimes | Sometimes | |
| (as host | (as network | |
| admin) | admin) | |
----------+------------+-------------+------------+------------
App | Yes | Sometimes | |
developer | | (via | |
| | protocols) | |
----------+------------+-------------+------------+------------
Network | | Sometimes | | Yes
admin | | | |
----------+------------+-------------+------------+------------
Host | Sometimes | | Yes |
admin | | | |
----------+------------+-------------+------------+------------
Firewall | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes
vendor | | | |
----------+------------+-------------+------------+------------
Common sources of firewall rules
Figure 1
Figure 1 assumes that network firewalls are administered by network
administrators (if any), and host firewalls are administered by host
administrators (if any). A firewall may also have rules provided by
the firewall vendor itself.
End users typically cannot directly provide rules to firewalls,
except when acting as host or network administrators. Application
developers can, however, provide such rules to some firewalls, such
as providing rules at installation time, for example by invoking an
API provided by a host firewall included with the operating system,
or by providing metadata to the operating system for use by
firewalls, or by using a protocol such as UPnP [UPNPWANIP] or the
Port Control Protocol (PCP) [RFC6887] to communicate with a network
firewall (see Section 4.1.3 for a longer discussion).
Thaler Expires September 4, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Host Firewalls March 2014
Firewall rules generally fall into two categories:
1. Attack surface reduction: Rules intended to prevent an
application from doing things the developer does not want it to
do.
2. Security policy: Rules intended to prevent an application from
doing things the developer might want it to do, but an
administrator does not.
A firewall is unnecessary if both categories are empty. We will now
treat each category in turn.
3. Category 1: Attack Surface Reduction
As noted above, this category of firewall rule typically attempts to
prevent applications from doing things the developer did not intend.
One might ask whether this category of rules is typically empty, and
the answer is that it is not today. One reason stems from mitigating
the threat of vulnerability exploitation by putting a security
barrier in a separate process isolated from the potentially
compromised process. Furthermore, there is also some desire for a
"stealth mode" (see Section 3.1 below).
Hence, typically a firewall will have rules to block everything by
default. A one-time, privileged, application install step adds one
or more Allow rules, and then normal (unprivileged) application
execution is then constrained by the resulting rules.
A second reason this category of rules is non-empty is where they are
used as workarounds for cases the application developer found too
onerous to implement. These cases include:
1. Simple policies that the developer would want, but that are
difficult to implement. One example might be a policy that an
application should communicate only within the local network
(e.g., a home or enterprise) but not be reachable from the global
Internet or while the device is moved to some public network such
as a hotspot. A second example might be the reverse, i.e., a
policy to communicate over the Internet but not with local
entities. The need for this category would be reduced by better
platform support for such policies, making them easier for
developers to implement and use.
2. Complex policies where the developer cannot possibly be aware of
specifics. One example might be a policy to communicate only
during, or only outside of, normal business hours, where the
Thaler Expires September 4, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Host Firewalls March 2014
exact hours may vary by location and time of year. Another
example might be a policy to avoid communication over links that
cost too much, where the definition of "too much" may vary by
customer, and indeed the end host and application might not even
be aware of the costs. The need for this category would be
reduced by better platform support for such policies, allowing
the application to communicate through some simple API with some
other library or service that can deal with the specifics.
3.1. Stealth Mode
There is often a desire to hide from address and port scans on a
public network. However, compliance to many RFCs requires responding
to various messages. For example, TCP [RFC0793] compliance requires
sending a RST in response to a SYN when there is no listener, and
ICMPv6 [RFC4443] compliance requires sending an Echo Reply in
response to an Echo Request.
Firewall rules can allow such stealth without changing the statement
of compliance of the basic protocols. However, stealth mode could
instead be implemented as a configurable option used by the
applications themselves. For example, rather than a firewall rule to
drop a certain outbound message after an application generates it,
fewer resources would be consumed if the application knew not to
generate it in the first place.
3.2. Discussion of Approaches
When running an application would result in unwanted behavior,
customers have three choices, which we will discuss in turn:
a. fix (or get the developer to fix) the software,
b. not use the software, or
c. let the software run, but then use a firewall to thwart it and
prevent it from working in unwanted ways.
3.2.1. Fix the Software
Firewall vendors point out that one can more quickly and reliably
update firewall rules than application software. Indeed some
applications might have no way to update them, and support for other
applications might no longer be available (e.g., if the developers
are no longer around). Most modern operating systems (and any
applications that come with them) have automatic updates, as do some
independent applications. But until all applications have automatic
updates, and automatic updates are actually used, it will still be
Thaler Expires September 4, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Host Firewalls March 2014
the case that firewall rules can be updated more quickly than
software patches. Furthermore, in some contexts (e.g., within some
enterprises), a possibly lengthy retesting and recertification
process must be employed before applications can be updated.
In short, mechanisms to encourage and ease the use of secure
automatic software updates are important and would greatly reduce
overall complexity. Such mechanisms should allow scheduling updates
at appropriate times, taking into account operational considerations
such as dependencies, compatibility, testing and maintenance windows.
3.2.2. Don't Use the Software
A key question to ask is whether the application could still do
something useful when firewalled. If the answer is yes, then not
using the software is probably unrealistic. For example, a game with
both single-player and multi-player capabilities could still be
useful in single-player mode when firewalled. If instead the answer
is no, it is better to not allow the application to run in the first
place, and some host firewalls can indeed block applications from
running.
3.2.3. Run the Software Behind a Firewall
As noted earlier, one disadvantage of this approach is that resources
still get consumed. For example, the application can still consume
memory, CPU, bandwidth (up to the point of blockage), ports in the
transport layer protocol, and possibly other resources depending on
the application, for operations that provide no benefit while
firewalled.
A second important disadvantage of this approach is the bad user
experience. Typically the application and the end-user won't know
why the application doesn't work. A poorly designed application
might not cope well and consume even more resources (e.g., retrying
an operation that continually fails).
A third disadvantage is that it is common for a firewall rule to
block more that is appropriate for attack surface reduction,
impacting protocol operation and even having adverse effects on other
endpoints. For example, some firewalls that cannot perform full deep
packet inspection at line speed have adopted a block by default
approach to anything they don't understand from the first few bytes;
this is very harmful to innovation as it interferes with the ability
to deploy new protocols and features.
As another example, blocking ICMP adversely affects path MTU
discovery which can cause problems for other entities (see [RFC4890]
Thaler Expires September 4, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Host Firewalls March 2014
and Section 3.1.1 of [RFC2979] for further discussion). This can
happen due to lack of understanding all the details of application
behavior, or due to accidental misconfiguration. Section 2.1 of
[RFC5505] states, "Anything that can be configured can be
misconfigured," and discusses this in more detail.
In short, it is important to make applications more aware of the
constraints of their environment and hence better able to behave well
when constrained.
4. Category 2: Security Policy
As noted in Section 2, this category of firewall rule typically
attempts to prevent an application from doing things an administrator
does not want them to do, even if the application developer did.
One might ask whether this category of rules is typically empty, and
the answer varies somewhat. For enterprise-scenario firewalls, it is
almost never empty, and hence the problems discussed in Section 3.2.3
can be common here too. Similarly, for consumer-scenario firewalls,
it is generally not empty but there are some notable exceptions. For
example, for the host firewall in some operation systems, this
category always starts empty and most users never change this.
4.1. Discussion of Approaches
Security policy can be implemented in any of three places, which we
will discuss in turn: the application, a firewall, or a library/
service that the application explicitly uses.
4.1.1. Security Policies in Applications
In this option, each application must implement support for
potentially complex security policies, along with ways for
administrators to configure them. Although the explicit interaction
with applications avoids the problems discussed in Section 3.2.3,
this approach is impractical for a number of reasons. First, the
complexity makes it difficult to implement and is error-prone,
especially for application developers whose primary expertise is not
networking. Second, the potentially large number of applications
(and application developers) results in an inconsistent experience
that makes it difficult for an administrator to manage common
policies across applications, thus driving up training and
operational costs.
Thaler Expires September 4, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Host Firewalls March 2014
4.1.2. Security Policies in Firewalls
Putting security policies in firewalls without explicit interaction
with the applications results in the problems discussed in
Section 3.2.3. In addition, this leads to "arms races" where the
applications are incented to evolve to get around the security
policies, since the desires of the end user or developer can conflict
with the desires of the host or network administrator. As stated in
Section 2.1 of [RFC4924]:
In practice, filtering intended to block or restrict application
usage is difficult to successfully implement without customer
consent, since over time developers will tend to re-engineer
filtered protocols so as to avoid the filters. Thus over time,
filtering is likely to result in interoperability issues or
unnecessary complexity. These costs come without the benefit of
effective filtering since many application protocols began to use
HTTP as a transport protocol after application developers observed
that firewalls allow HTTP traffic while dropping packets for
unknown protocols.
Such arms races stem from inherent tussles between the desires of
different entities. For example, the tussle between end user desires
and network administrator desires led to the arms race between
network firewalls and deep packet inspection on the one hand, vs. the
use of tunnels and obfuscation on the other. Similarly, the tussle
between application developer desires and network administrator
desires contributed to the use of HTTP as a transport in order to
work from within the widest possible set of networks. Section 4 of
[RFC2979] states:
Wrapping a new protocol around HTTP and using port 80 because it
is likely to be open isn't a good idea, since it will eventually
result in added complexity in firewall handling of port 80.
However the practice is now widespread and even standardized
([RFC6455]). See Section 3.3.1 of [RFC6250] and
[I-D.blanchet-iab-internetoverport443] for more discussion.
Such arms races most typically, though not exclusively, occur with
network (not host) firewalls. This is because it is more likely for
network firewalls to have lack of trust between the policy-desiring
entities, and less likely that there is any trusted arbiter.
Thaler Expires September 4, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Host Firewalls March 2014
4.1.3. Security Policies in a Service
In this approach, applications use a library or other external
service whereby the applications have explicit knowledge of the
impact of the security policies in order to avoid the problems in
Section 3.2.3, and in a sandboxed environment this might be the
application's only way to interact with the network.
Thus in this opt-in approach, applications provide a description of
the network access requested, and the library/service can ensure that
applications and/or users are informed in a way they can understand,
and that administrators can craft policy that affects the
applications.
This approach is very difficult to do in a firewall-vendor-specific
library/service when there can be multiple firewall implementations
(including ones in the middle of the network), since it is usually
impractical for an application developer to know about and develop
for many different firewall APIs. It is, however, possible to employ
this approach with a firewall-vendor-agnostic library/service that
can communicate with both applications and firewalls. Thus
application developers and firewall developers can use a common
platform.
We observe that this approach is very different from the classic
firewall approach. It is, however the approach used by some host
operating system firewalls, and it is also the approach used by PCP
in the IETF. As such, we encourage the deployment and use of this
model.
Furthermore, while this approach lessens the incentive for arms races
as discussed above, one important issue still remains. Namely, there
is no standard mechanism today for a library/service to learn complex
policies from the network. Further work in this area is needed.
5. Security Considerations
There is a common misconception that firewalls protect users from
malware, when in fact firewalls protect users from buggy software.
There is some concern that firewalls give users a false sense of
security; firewalls are not invulnerable and will not prevent malware
from running if the user allows it.
This document has focused primarily on host firewalls. For
additional discussion (focused more on network firewalls), see
[RFC2979], [I-D.iab-filtering-considerations], and
[I-D.baker-opsawg-firewalls].
Thaler Expires September 4, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Host Firewalls March 2014
6. IANA Considerations
This document requires no actions by the IANA.
7. Acknowledgements
Stuart Cheshire provided the motivation for this document by asking
the thought-provoking question of why one would want to firewall an
application rather than simply stop running it. The ensuring
discussion, and subsequent IAB tech chat in November 2011, led to
this document. Dan Simon, Stephen Bensley, Gerardo Diaz Cuellar, and
Brian Carpenter also provided helpful suggestions.
8. IAB Members at the Time of This Writing
Bernard Aboba
Jari Arkko
Marc Blanchet
Ross Callon
Alissa Cooper
Joel Halpern
Russ Housley
Eliot Lear
Xing Li
Erik Nordmark
Andrew Sullivan
Dave Thaler
Hannes Tschofenig
9. Informative References
[I-D.baker-opsawg-firewalls]
Baker, F., "On Firewalls in Internet Security", draft-
baker-opsawg-firewalls-00 (work in progress), January
2012.
[I-D.blanchet-iab-internetoverport443]
Blanchet, M., "Implications of Blocking Outgoing Ports
Except Ports 80 and 443", draft-blanchet-iab-
internetoverport443-02 (work in progress), July 2013.
[I-D.iab-filtering-considerations]
Barnes, R., Cooper, A., and O. Kolkman, "Technical
Considerations for Internet Service Blocking and
Filtering", draft-iab-filtering-considerations-06 (work in
progress), January 2014.
Thaler Expires September 4, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Host Firewalls March 2014
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC
793, September 1981.
[RFC2979] Freed, N., "Behavior of and Requirements for Internet
Firewalls", RFC 2979, October 2000.
[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.
[RFC4864] Van de Velde, G., Hain, T., Droms, R., Carpenter, B., and
E. Klein, "Local Network Protection for IPv6", RFC 4864,
May 2007.
[RFC4890] Davies, E. and J. Mohacsi, "Recommendations for Filtering
ICMPv6 Messages in Firewalls", RFC 4890, May 2007.
[RFC4924] Aboba, B. and E. Davies, "Reflections on Internet
Transparency", RFC 4924, July 2007.
[RFC4948] Andersson, L., Davies, E., and L. Zhang, "Report from the
IAB workshop on Unwanted Traffic March 9-10, 2006", RFC
4948, August 2007.
[RFC4949] Shirey, R., "Internet Security Glossary, Version 2", RFC
4949, August 2007.
[RFC5505] Aboba, B., Thaler, D., Andersson, L., and S. Cheshire,
"Principles of Internet Host Configuration", RFC 5505, May
2009.
[RFC6250] Thaler, D., "Evolution of the IP Model", RFC 6250, May
2011.
[RFC6455] Fette, I. and A. Melnikov, "The WebSocket Protocol", RFC
6455, December 2011.
[RFC6887] Wing, D., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and P.
Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 6887, April
2013.
[RFC7045] Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, "Transmission and Processing
of IPv6 Extension Headers", RFC 7045, December 2013.
[UPNPWANIP]
UPnP Forum, "WANIPConnection:2 Service", September 2010,
<http://upnp.org/specs/gw/
UPnP-gw-WANIPConnection-v2-Service.pdf>.
Thaler Expires September 4, 2014 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Host Firewalls March 2014
Author's Address
Dave Thaler
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
USA
Phone: +1 425 703 8835
Email: dthaler@microsoft.com
Thaler Expires September 4, 2014 [Page 14]