Operational Security Capabilities for F. Gont
IP Network Infrastructure (opsec) UTN/FRH
Internet-Draft G. Gont
Intended status: Informational SI6 Networks
Expires: January 4, 2014 C. Pignataro
Cisco
July 3, 2013
Recommendations for filtering ICMP messages
draft-ietf-opsec-icmp-filtering-04
Abstract
This document document provides advice on the filtering of ICMPv4 and
ICMPv6 messages. Additionaly, it discusses the operational and
interoperability implications of such filtering.
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 January 4, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2. Internet Control Message Protocol version 4 (ICMP) . . . . . . 6
2.1. ICMPv4 Error Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.1.1. Destination Unreachable (Type 3) . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1.1.1. Net Unreachable (Code 0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1.1.2. Host Unreachable (Code 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.1.1.3. Protocol Unreachable (Code 2) . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.1.1.4. Port Unreachable (Code 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.1.1.5. Fragmentation Needed and DF Set (Code 4) . . . . . 13
2.1.1.6. Source Route Failed (Code 5) . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.1.1.7. Destination Network Unknown (Code 6)
(Deprecated) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.1.1.8. Destination Host Unknown (Code 7) . . . . . . . . 15
2.1.1.9. Source Host Isolated (Code 8) (Deprecated) . . . . 16
2.1.1.10. Communication with Destination Network
Administratively Prohibited (Code 9)
(Deprecated) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.1.1.11. Communication with Destination Host
Administratively Prohibited (Code 10)
(Deprecated) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.1.1.12. Network Unreachable for Type of Service (Code
11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.1.1.13. Host Unreachable for Type of Service (Code 12) . . 19
2.1.1.14. Communication Administratively Prohibited
(Code 13) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.1.1.15. Host Precedence Violation (Code 14) . . . . . . . 21
2.1.1.16. Precedence Cutoff in Effect (Code 15) . . . . . . 21
2.1.2. Source Quench (Type 4, Code 0) . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.1.3. Redirect (Type 5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.1.3.1. Redirect Datagrams for the Network (Code 0) . . . 23
2.1.3.2. Redirect Datagrams for the Host (Code 1) . . . . . 24
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
2.1.3.3. Redirect datagrams for the Type of Service and
Network (Code 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.1.3.4. Redirect Datagrams for the Type of Service and
Host (Code 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.1.4. Time Exceeded (Type 11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.1.4.1. Time to Live Exceeded in Transit (Code 0) . . . . 26
2.1.4.2. Fragment Reassembly Time Exceeded (Code 1) . . . . 26
2.1.5. Parameter Problem (Type 12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.1.5.1. Pointer Indicates the Error (Code 0) . . . . . . . 27
2.1.5.2. Required Option is Missing (Code 1) . . . . . . . 28
2.2. ICMPv4 Informational Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.2.1. Echo or Echo Reply Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.2.1.1. Echo Message (Type 8, Code 0) . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.2.1.2. Echo Reply Message (Type 0, Code 0) . . . . . . . 29
2.2.2. Router Solicitation or Router Advertisement message . 30
2.2.2.1. Router Solicitation Message (Type 10, Code 0) . . 30
2.2.2.2. Router Advertisement Message (Type 9, Code 0) . . 31
2.2.3. Timestamp or Timestamp Reply Message . . . . . . . . . 31
2.2.3.1. Timestamp Message (Type 13, Code 0) . . . . . . . 31
2.2.3.2. Timestamp Reply Message (Type 14, Code 0) . . . . 32
2.2.4. Information Request or Information Reply Message
(Deprecated) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.2.4.1. Information Request Message (Type 15, Code 0) . . 32
2.2.4.2. Information Reply Message (Type 16, Code 0) . . . 33
2.2.5. Address Mask Request or Address Mask Reply . . . . . . 33
2.2.5.1. Address Mask Request (Type 17, Code 0) . . . . . . 34
2.2.5.2. Address Mask Reply (Type 18, Code 0) . . . . . . . 34
3. Internet Control Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) . . . . . 35
3.1. ICMPv6 Error Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.1.1. Destination Unreachable (Type 1) . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.1.1.1. No route to destination (Code 0) . . . . . . . . . 36
3.1.1.2. Communication with destination
administratively prohibited (Code 1) . . . . . . . 37
3.1.1.3. Beyond scope of source address (Code 2) . . . . . 38
3.1.1.4. Address unreachable (Code 3) . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.1.1.5. Port unreachable (Code 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.1.1.6. Source address failed ingress/egress policy
(Code 5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.1.1.7. Reject route to destination (Code 6) . . . . . . . 40
3.1.2. Packet Too Big Message (Type 2, Code 0) . . . . . . . 40
3.1.3. Time Exceeded Message (Type 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.1.3.1. Hop limit exceeded in transit (Code 0) . . . . . . 41
3.1.3.2. Fragment reassembly time exceeded (Code 1) . . . . 42
3.1.4. Parameter Problem Message (Type 4) . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.1.4.1. Erroneous header field encountered (Code 0) . . . 42
3.1.4.2. Unrecognized Next Header Type encountered
(Code 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.1.4.3. Unrecognized IPv6 option encountered (Code 2) . . 44
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
3.1.5. Private experimentation (Type 100) . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.1.6. Private experimentation (Type 101) . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.1.7. Reserved for expansion of ICMPv6 error messages
(Type 127) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.2. ICMPv6 Informational messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.2.1. Echo Request or Echo Reply Message . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.2.1.1. Echo Request message (Type 128, Code 0) . . . . . 46
3.2.1.2. Echo reply message (Type 129, Code 0) . . . . . . 46
3.2.2. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.2.2.1. Multicast Listener Query (Type 130) . . . . . . . 47
3.2.2.2. Multicast Listener Report (Type 131) . . . . . . . 47
3.2.2.3. Multicast Listener Done (Type 132) . . . . . . . . 47
3.2.2.4. Version 2 Multicast Listener Report (Type 143) . . 47
3.2.3. Neighbor Discovery (ND) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.2.3.1. Router Solicitation (Type 133) . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.2.3.2. Router Advertisement (Type 134) . . . . . . . . . 48
3.2.3.3. Neighbor Solicitation (Type 135) . . . . . . . . . 48
3.2.3.4. Neighbor Advertisement (Type 136) . . . . . . . . 48
3.2.3.5. Redirect Message (Type 137) . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3.2.4. Router Renumbering (Type 138) . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3.2.5. IPv6 Node Information Queries . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3.2.5.1. ICMP Node Information Query (Type 139) . . . . . . 49
3.2.5.2. ICMP Node Information Response (Type 140) . . . . 50
3.2.6. IPv6 ND Inverse Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.2.6.1. Inverse Neighbor Discovery Solicitation
Message (Type 141) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.2.6.2. Inverse Neighbor Discovery Advertisement
Message (Type 142) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.2.7. Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.2.7.1. Home Agent Address Discovery Request Message
(Type 144) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.2.7.2. Home Agent Address Discovery Reply Message
(Type 145) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.2.7.3. Mobile Prefix Solicitation (Type 146) . . . . . . 51
3.2.7.4. Mobile Prefix Advertisement (Type 147) . . . . . . 51
3.2.8. SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3.2.8.1. Certification Path Solicitation Message (Type
148) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3.2.8.2. Certification Path Advertisement Message (Type
149) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3.2.9. ICMP messages utilized by experimental mobility
protocols such as Seamoby (Type 150) . . . . . . . . . 52
3.2.10. Multicast Router Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3.2.10.1. Multicast Router Advertisement (Type 151) . . . . 52
3.2.10.2. Multicast Router Solicitation (Type 152) . . . . . 53
3.2.10.3. Multicast Router Termination (Type 153) . . . . . 53
3.2.11. FMIPv6 Messages (Type 154) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.2.12. RPL Control Message (Type 155) . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
3.2.13. Private experimentation (Type 200) . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.2.14. Private experimentation (Type 201) . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.2.15. Reserved for expansion of ICMPv6 informational
messages (Type 255) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
1. Introduction
This document document provides advice on the filtering of ICMPv4 and
ICMPv6 messages. Additionaly, it discusses the operational and
interoperability implications of such filtering.
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].
2. Internet Control Message Protocol version 4 (ICMP)
Table 1 summarizes the recommendations with respect to what a device
SHOULD do when generating, forwarding, or receiving ICMPv6 messages.
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
+-------------------------------+----------+-----------+------------+
| ICMPv4 Message | Sourced | Through | Destined |
| | from | Device | to Device |
| | Device | | |
+-------------------------------+----------+-----------+------------+
| ICMPv4-unreach-net | Rate-L | Rate-L | Rate-L |
+-------------------------------+----------+-----------+------------+
| ICMPv4-unreach-host | Rate-L | Rate-L | Rate-L |
+-------------------------------+----------+-----------+------------+
| ICMPv4-unreach-proto | Rate-L | Deny | Rate-L |
+-------------------------------+----------+-----------+------------+
| ICMPv4-unreach-port | Rate-L | Deny | Rate-L |
+-------------------------------+----------+-----------+------------+
| ICMPv4-unreach-frag-needed | Send | Permit | Rate-L |
+-------------------------------+----------+-----------+------------+
| ICMPv4-unreach-src-route | Rate-L | Deny | Rate-L |
+-------------------------------+----------+-----------+------------+
| ICMPv4-unreach-net-unknown | Deny | Deny | Deny |
| (Depr) | | | |
+-------------------------------+----------+-----------+------------+
| ICMPv4-unreach-host-unknown | Rate-L | Deny | Ignore |
+-------------------------------+----------+-----------+------------+
| ICMPv4-unreach-host-isolated | Deny | Deny | Deny |
| (Depr) | | | |
+-------------------------------+----------+-----------+------------+
| ICMPv4-unreach-net-tos | Rate-L | Deny | Rate-L |
+-------------------------------+----------+-----------+------------+
| ICMPv4-unreach-host-tos | Rate-L | Deny | Rate-L |
+-------------------------------+----------+-----------+------------+
| ICMPv4-unreach-admin | Rate-L | Rate-L | Rate-L |
+-------------------------------+----------+-----------+------------+
| ICMPv4-unreach-prec-violation | Rate-L | Deny | Rate-L |
+-------------------------------+----------+-----------+------------+
| ICMPv4-unreach-prec-cutoff | Rate-L | Deny | Rate-L |
+-------------------------------+----------+-----------+------------+
| ICMPv4-quench | Deny | Deny | Deny |
+-------------------------------+----------+-----------+------------+
| ICMPv4-redirect-net | Rate-L | Deny | Rate-L |
+-------------------------------+----------+-----------+------------+
| ICMPv4-redirect-host | Rate-L | Deny | Rate-L |
+-------------------------------+----------+-----------+------------+
| ICMPv4-redirect-tos-net | Rate-L | Deny | Rate-L |
+-------------------------------+----------+-----------+------------+
| ICMPv4-redirect-tos-host | Rate-L | Deny | Rate-L |
+-------------------------------+----------+-----------+------------+
| ICMPv4-timed-ttl | Rate-L | Permit | Rate-L |
+-------------------------------+----------+-----------+------------+
| ICMPv4-timed-reass | Rate-L | Permit | Rate-L |
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
| ICMPv4-parameter-pointer | Rate-L | Deny | Rate-L |
+-------------------------------+----------+-----------+------------+
| ICMPv4-option-missing | Rate-L | Deny | Rate-L |
+-------------------------------+----------+-----------+------------+
| ICMPv4-req-echo-message | Rate-L | Permit | Rate-L |
+-------------------------------+----------+-----------+------------+
| ICMPv4-req-echo-reply | Rate-L | Permit | Rate-L |
+-------------------------------+----------+-----------+------------+
| ICMPv4-req-router-sol | Rate-L | Deny | Rate-L |
+-------------------------------+----------+-----------+------------+
| ICMPv4-req-router-adv | Rate-L | Deny | Rate-L |
+-------------------------------+----------+-----------+------------+
| ICMPv4-req-timestamp-message | Rate-L | Deny | Rate-L |
+-------------------------------+----------+-----------+------------+
| ICMPv4-req-timestamp-reply | Rate-L | Deny | Rate-L |
+-------------------------------+----------+-----------+------------+
| ICMPv4-info-message (Depr) | Deny | Deny | Deny |
+-------------------------------+----------+-----------+------------+
| ICMPv4-info-reply (Depr) | Deny | Deny | Deny |
+-------------------------------+----------+-----------+------------+
| ICMPv4-mask-request | Rate-L | Deny | Rate-L |
+-------------------------------+----------+-----------+------------+
| ICMPv4-mask-reply | Rate-L | Deny | Rate-L |
+-------------------------------+----------+-----------+------------+
Legend: "Depr" = Deprecated; "Rate-L" = Rate-Limit
Table 1: Summary Recommendations for ICMPv4
2.1. ICMPv4 Error Messages
[RFC0792] is the base specification for 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
errors to the sending system. The Host Requirements RFC [RFC1122]
classifies ICMP error messages into those that indicate "soft
errors", and those that indicate "hard errors", thus roughly defining
the semantics of them.
Section 3.2.2.1 of [RFC1122] specifies the amount of information to
be included in the payload of an ICMP error message, and how ICMP
error messages should be demultiplexed to the corresponding transport
protocol instance. Additionally, it imposes details some scenarios
in which ICMP errors should not be generated.
Section 4.1.3.3 of [RFC1122] states that UDP MUST pass to the
application layer all ICMP error messages that it receives from the
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
IP layer.
Section 4.2.3.9 of [RFC1122] states that TCP MUST act on an ICMP
error message passed up from the IP layer, directing it to the
connection that created the error.
Section 4.3.2 of [RFC1812] contains a number of requirements for the
generation and processing of ICMP error messages, including:
initialization of the TTL of the error message, the amount of data
from the offending packet to be included in the ICMP payload, setting
the IP Source Address of ICMP error messages, setting of the TOS and
Precedence, processing of IP Source Route option in offending
packets, scenarios in which routers MUST NOT send ICMP error
messages, and application of rate-limiting to ICMP error messages.
The ICMP specification [RFC0792] originally defined the ICMP Source
Quench message (Type 4, Code 0), which was meant to provide a
mechanism for flow control and congestion control. ICMP Source
Quench is being formally deprecated by [RFC6633].
[RFC1191] 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
systems to determine the MTU of an arbitrary internet path.
Appendix D of [RFC4301] provides information about which ICMP error
messages are produced by hosts, intermediate routers, or both.
2.1.1. Destination Unreachable (Type 3)
The ICMP Destination Unreachable message is sent by a router in
response to a packet which it cannot forward because the destination
(or next hop) is unreachable or a service is unavailable. Examples
of such cases include a message addressed to a host which is not
there and therefore does not respond to ARP requests, and messages
addressed to network prefixes for which the router has no valid
route. [RFC1812] states that a router MUST be able to generate ICMP
Destination Unreachable messages and SHOULD choose a response Code
that most closely matches the reason the message is being generated.
Section 3.2.2.1 of [RFC1122] states that a Destination Unreachable
message that is received MUST be reported to the transport layer, and
that the transport layer SHOULD use the information appropriately.
2.1.1.1. Net Unreachable (Code 0)
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
2.1.1.1.1. Uses
Used to indicate that a router cannot forward a packet because it has
no routes at all (including no default route) to the destination
specified in the packet. A number of systems abort connections in
non-synchronized states in response to this message, to avoid long
delays in connection establishment attempts [RFC5461].
2.1.1.1.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC0792]. Section 4.3.3.1 of [RFC1812] states that if a
router cannot forward a packet because it has no routes at all
(including no default route) to the destination specified in the
packet, then the router MUST generate a Destination Unreachable, Code
0 (Network Unreachable) ICMP message. Section 3.2.2.1 of [RFC1122]
states that this message may result from a routing transient, and
MUST therefore be interpreted as only a hint, not proof, that the
specified destination is unreachable. For example, it MUST NOT be
used as proof of a dead gateway. Section 4.2.3.9 of [RFC1122] states
that this message indicates a soft error, and therefore TCP MUST NOT
abort the connection, and SHOULD make the information available to
the application.
2.1.1.1.3. Threats
An attacker can potentially perform a Denial of Service (DoS) attack
against the router by forcing it to generate a high volume of ICMP
Destination Unreachable messages. This can be done by flooding the
router with packets which the attacker knows will result in the
router spending resources in generating a high volume of ICMP
messages.
This attack be mitigated by rate-limiting the rate of IMCP messages
generated. For rate-limiting ICMPv4 messages see Section 4.3.2.8 of
[RFC1812].
2.1.1.1.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
May lead to long delays between connection establishment attempts
that could have been avoided by those systems aborting non-
synchronized connections in response to ICMP soft errors [RFC5461].
2.1.1.2. Host Unreachable (Code 1)
2.1.1.2.1. Uses
Used to indicate that a router cannot forward a to the intended
destination because it is unreachable. A number of systems abort
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
connections in non-synchronized states in response to this message,
to avoid long delays in connection establishment attempts [RFC5461].
2.1.1.2.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC0792]. Section 3.2.2.1 of [RFC1122] states that his
message may result from a routing transient, and MUST therefore be
interpreted as only a hint, not proof, that the specified destination
is unreachable. For example, it MUST NOT be used as proof of a dead
gateway. Section 4.2.3.9 of [RFC1122] states that this message
indicates a soft error, and therefore TCP MUST NOT abort the
connection, and SHOULD make the information available to the
application.
2.1.1.2.3. Threats
An attacker can potentially perform a Denial of Service (DoS) attack
against the router by forcing it to generate a high volume of ICMP
Destination Unreachable messages. This can be done by flooding the
router with packets which the attacker knows will result in the
router spending resources in generating a high volume of ICMP
messages.
This can be mitigated by rate-limiting the rate of IMCP messages
generated. For rate-limiting ICMPv4 messages see Section 4.3.2.8 of
[RFC1812].
2.1.1.2.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
May lead to long delays between connection establishment attempts
that could have been avoided by those systems aborting non-
synchronized connections in response to ICMP soft errors [RFC5461].
2.1.1.3. Protocol Unreachable (Code 2)
2.1.1.3.1. Uses
Used by hosts to indicate that the designated transport protocol is
not supported.
2.1.1.3.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC0792]. [RFC1122] states that a host SHOULD send a
protocol unreachable when the designated transport protocol is not
supported. Section 4.2.3.9 of [RFC1122] states that this message
indicates a hard error condition, so TCP SHOULD abort the connection.
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
2.1.1.3.3. Threats
Can be exploited to perform connection-reset attacks [RFC5927]. Such
attacks need to be mitigated at hosts, as discussed in [RFC5927].
An attacker can potentially perform a Denial of Service (DoS) attack
against the router by forcing it to generate a high volume of ICMP
Destination Unreachable messages. This can be done by flooding the
router with packets which the attacker knows will result in the
router spending resources in generating a high volume of ICMP
messages. These DoS attacks can be mitigated by rate-limiting the
rate of IMCP messages generated. For rate-limiting ICMPv4 messages
see Section 4.3.2.8 of [RFC1812].
2.1.1.3.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
None.
2.1.1.4. Port Unreachable (Code 3)
2.1.1.4.1. Uses
Used by end-systems to signal the source system that it could not
demultiplex the received packet (i.e., there was no listening process
on the destination port). Used by UDP-based trace route to locate
the final destination (UDP probes are sent to an UDP port that is
believed to be unused). Some firewalls respond with this error
message when a received packet is discarded due to a violation of the
firewall security policy. A number of systems abort connections in
non-synchronized states in response to this message, to avoid long
delays in connection establishment attempts [RFC5461].
2.1.1.4.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC0792]. Section 3.2.2.1 of [RFC1122] states that a
host SHOULD send an ICMP port unreachable when the designated
transport protocol (e.g., UDP) is unable to demultiplex the datagram
but has no protocol mechanism to inform the sender. Additionally, it
states that a transport protocol that has its own mechanism for
notifying the sender that a port is unreachable MUST nevertheless
accept an ICMP Port Unreachable for the same purpose.
Section 4.2.3.9 of [RFC1122] states that this message indicates a
hard error condition, so TCP SHOULD abort the connection.
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
2.1.1.4.3. Threats
Can be exploited to perform connection-reset attacks [RFC5927]. Such
attacks need to be mitigated at hosts, as discussed in [RFC5927].
An attacker can potentially perform a Denial of Service (DoS) attack
against the router by forcing it to generate a high volume of ICMP
Destination Unreachable messages. This can be done by flooding the
router with packets which the attacker knows will result in the
router spending resources in generating a high volume of ICMP
messages. These DoS attacks can be mitigated by rate-limiting the
rate of IMCP messages generated. For rate-limiting ICMPv4 messages
see Section 4.3.2.8 of [RFC1812].
2.1.1.4.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
May lead to long delays between connection establishment attempts or
long response times that could have been avoided by aborting non-
synchronized connections in response to ICMP soft errors [RFC5461].
2.1.1.5. Fragmentation Needed and DF Set (Code 4)
2.1.1.5.1. Uses
Used for the Path-MTU Discovery mechanism described in [RFC1191].
2.1.1.5.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC0792]
2.1.1.5.3. Threats
This error message can be used to perform Denial of Service (DoS)
attacks against transport protocols. [RFC5927] describes the use of
this error message to attack TCP connections.
2.1.1.5.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
Filtering this error message breaks the Path-MTU Discovery mechansim
described in [RFC1191].
2.1.1.6. Source Route Failed (Code 5)
2.1.1.6.1. Uses
Signals errors araising from IPv4 source routes.
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
2.1.1.6.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC0792]. Section 3.2.2.1 of [RFC1122] states that his
message may result from a routing transient, and MUST therefore be
interpreted as only a hint, not proof, that the specified destination
is unreachable. For example, it MUST NOT be used as proof of a dead
gateway. Section 4.2.3.9 of [RFC1122] states that this message
indicates a soft error, and therefore TCP MUST NOT abort the
connection, and SHOULD make the information available to the
application.
Section 4.2.3.9 of [RFC1122] states that this message indicates a
hard error condition, so TCP SHOULD abort the connection.
2.1.1.6.3. Threats
An attacker can potentially perform a Denial of Service (DoS) attack
against the router by forcing it to generate a high volume of ICMP
Destination Unreachable messages. This can be done by flooding the
router with packets which the attacker knows will result in the
router spending resources in generating a high volume of ICMP
messages.
This can be mitigated by rate-limiting the rate of IMCP messages
generated. For rate-limiting ICMPv4 messages see Section 4.3.2.8 of
[RFC1812].
2.1.1.6.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
May lead to long delays between connection establishment attempts or
long response times that could have been avoided by aborting non-
synchronized connections in response to ICMP soft errors [RFC5461].
2.1.1.7. Destination Network Unknown (Code 6) (Deprecated)
2.1.1.7.1. Uses
Signal unreachability condition to the sending system. Currently
deprecated. A number of systems abort connections in non-
synchronized states in response to this message, to avoid long delays
in connection establishment attempts [RFC5461].
2.1.1.7.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC1122]. [RFC1812] states that this Code SHOULD NOT be
generated since it would imply on the part of the router that the
destination network does not exist (net unreachable Code 0 SHOULD be
used in place of Code 6).
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
2.1.1.7.3. Threats
An attacker can potentially perform a Denial of Service (DoS) attack
against the router by forcing it to generate a high volume of ICMP
Destination Unreachable messages. This can be done by flooding the
router with packets which the attacker knows will result in the
router spending resources in generating a high volume of ICMP
messages.
This can be mitigated by not-generating and dropping (rather than
forwarding) these messages (since they have been deprecated).
2.1.1.7.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
May lead to long delays between connection establishment attempts or
long response times that could have been avoided by aborting non-
synchronized connections in response to ICMP soft errors [RFC5461].
2.1.1.8. Destination Host Unknown (Code 7)
2.1.1.8.1. Uses
Signal unreachability condition to the sending system. A number of
systems abort connections in non-synchronized states in response to
this message, to avoid long delays in connection establishment
attempts [RFC5461].
2.1.1.8.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC1122], and is generated only when a router can
determine (from link layer advice) that the destination host does not
exist
2.1.1.8.3. Threats
An attacker can potentially perform a Denial of Service (DoS) attack
against the router by forcing it to generate a high volume of ICMP
Destination Unreachable messages. This can be done by flooding the
router with packets which the attacker knows will result in the
router spending resources in generating a high volume of ICMP
messages.
This can be mitigated by rate-limiting the rate of IMCP messages
generated. For rate-limiting ICMPv4 messages see Section 4.3.2.8 of
[RFC1812].
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
2.1.1.8.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
May lead to long delays between connection establishment attempts or
long response times that could have been avoided by aborting non-
synchronized connections in response to ICMP soft errors [RFC5461].
2.1.1.9. Source Host Isolated (Code 8) (Deprecated)
2.1.1.9.1. Uses
Signal unreachability condition to the sending system, but is
currently deprecated. A number of systems abort connections in non-
synchronized states in response to this message, to avoid long delays
in connection establishment attempts [RFC5461].
2.1.1.9.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC1122]. [RFC1812] states that routers SHOULD NOT
generate this error message, and states that whichever of Codes 0
(Network Unreachable) and 1 (Host Unreachable) is appropriate SHOULD
be used instead.
2.1.1.9.3. Threats
An attacker can potentially perform a Denial of Service (DoS) attack
against the router by forcing it to generate a high volume of ICMP
Destination Unreachable messages. This can be done by flooding the
router with packets which the attacker knows will result in the
router spending resources in generating a high volume of ICMP
messages.
This can be mitigated by rate-limiting the rate of IMCP messages
generated. For rate-limiting ICMPv4 messages see Section 4.3.2.8 of
[RFC1812].
2.1.1.9.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
Might lead to long delays between connection establishment attempts
or long response times that could have been avoided by aborting non-
synchronized connections in response to ICMP soft errors [RFC5461].
However, this error message is deprecated, and thus systems should
not depend on it for any purpose.
2.1.1.10. Communication with Destination Network Administratively
Prohibited (Code 9) (Deprecated)
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
2.1.1.10.1. Uses
Signal unreachability condition to the sending system. A number of
systems abort connections in non-synchronized states in response to
this message, to avoid long delays in connection establishment
attempts [RFC5461].
2.1.1.10.2. Message Specification
This error Code is defined in [RFC1122], and was intended for use by
end-to-end encryption devices used by U.S military agencies.
[RFC1812] deprecates its use, stating that routers SHOULD use the
Code 13 (Communication Administratively Prohibited) if they
administratively filter packets.
2.1.1.10.3. Threats
May reveal filtering policies. In orther to mitigate this issue, a
node could deny the generation of these error messages. However, we
note that this would also have a negative impact on network
troubleshooting.
An attacker can potentially perform a Denial of Service (DoS) attack
against the router by forcing it to generate a high volume of ICMP
Destination Unreachable messages. This can be done by flooding the
router with packets which the attacker knows will result in the
router spending resources in generating a high volume of ICMP
messages. These DoS attacks can be mitigated by rate-limiting the
rate of IMCP messages generated. For rate-limiting ICMPv4 messages
see Section 4.3.2.8 of [RFC1812].
2.1.1.10.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
May lead to long delays between connection establishment attempts or
long response times that could have been avoided by aborting non-
synchronized connections in response to ICMP soft errors [RFC5461].
However, this error message is deprecated, and thus system should not
depend on it for any purpose.
2.1.1.11. Communication with Destination Host Administratively
Prohibited (Code 10) (Deprecated)
2.1.1.11.1. Uses
Signal unreachability condition to the sending system, but is
currently deprecated. A number of systems abort connections in non-
synchronized states in response to this message, to avoid long delays
in connection establishment attempts [RFC5461].
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
2.1.1.11.2. Message Specification
This error Code is defined in [RFC1122], and was intended for use by
end-to-end encryption devices used by U.S military agencies.
[RFC1812] deprecates its use, stating that routers SHOULD use the
Code 13 (Communication Administratively Prohibited) if they
administratively filter packets.
2.1.1.11.3. Threats
May reveal filtering policies. In orther to mitigate this issue, a
node could deny the generation of these error messages. However, we
note that this would also have a negative impact on network
troubleshooting.
An attacker can potentially perform a Denial of Service (DoS) attack
against the router by forcing it to generate a high volume of ICMP
Destination Unreachable messages. This can be done by flooding the
router with packets which the attacker knows will result in the
router spending resources in generating a high volume of ICMP
messages.
This can be mitigated by rate-limiting the rate of ICMP messages
generated. For rate-limiting ICMPv4 messages see Section 4.3.2.8 of
[RFC1812].
2.1.1.11.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
May lead to long delays between connection establishment attempts or
long response times that could have been avoided by aborting non-
synchronized connections in response to ICMP soft errors [RFC5461].
However, this error message is deprecated, and thus system should not
depend on it for any purpose.
2.1.1.12. Network Unreachable for Type of Service (Code 11)
2.1.1.12.1. Uses
Signal unreachability condition to the sending system when TOS-based
routing is implemented, because the TOS specified for the routes is
neither the default TOS (0000) nor the TOS of the packet that the
router is attempting to route. A number of systems abort connections
in non-synchronized states in response to this message, to avoid long
delays in connection establishment attempts [RFC5461].
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
2.1.1.12.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC1122]. Section 4.3.3.1 of [RFC1812] states that if a
router cannot forward a packet because the TOS specified for the
routes is neither the default TOS (0000) nor the TOS of the packet
that the router is attempting to route, then the router MUST generate
a Destination Unreachable, Code 11 (Network Unreachable for TOS) ICMP
message.
2.1.1.12.3. Threats
May reveal routing policies.
An attacker can potentially perform a Denial of Service (DoS) attack
against the router by forcing it to generate a high volume of ICMP
Destination Unreachable messages. This can be done by flooding the
router with packets which the attacker knows will result in the
router spending resources in generating a high volume of ICMP
messages. This can be mitigated by rate-limiting the rate of ICMP
messages generated. For rate-limiting ICMPv4 messages see Section
4.3.2.8 of [RFC1812].
2.1.1.12.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
May lead to long delays between connection establishment attempts or
long response times that could have been avoided by aborting non-
synchronized connections in response to ICMP soft errors [RFC5461].
2.1.1.13. Host Unreachable for Type of Service (Code 12)
2.1.1.13.1. Uses
Signal unreachability condition to the sending system, when TOS-based
routing is implemented, because the TOS specified for the routes is
neither the default TOS (0000) nor the TOS of the packet that the
router is attempting to route. A number of systems abort connections
in non-synchronized states in response to this message, to avoid long
delays in connection establishment attempts [RFC5461].
2.1.1.13.1.1. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC1122]. Section 4.3.3.1 of [RFC1812] states that this
message is sent if a packet is to be forwarded to a host that is on a
network that is directly connected to the router and the router
cannot forward the packet because no route to the destination has a
TOS that is either equal to the TOS requested in the packet or is the
default TOS (0000).
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
2.1.1.13.2. Threats
May reveal routing policies.
An attacker can potentially perform a Denial of Service (DoS) attack
against the router by forcing it to generate a high volume of ICMP
Destination Unreachable messages. This can be done by flooding the
router with packets which the attacker knows will result in the
router spending resources in generating a high volume of ICMP
messages. This can be mitigated by rate-limiting the rate of ICMP
messages generated. For rate-limiting ICMPv4 messages see Section
4.3.2.8 of [RFC1812].
2.1.1.13.3. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
May lead to long delays between connection establishment attempts or
long response times that could have been avoided by aborting non-
synchronized connections in response to ICMP soft errors [RFC5461].
2.1.1.14. Communication Administratively Prohibited (Code 13)
2.1.1.14.1. Uses
Signal unreachability condition (due to filtering policies) to the
sending system. A number of systems abort connections in non-
synchronized states in response to this message, to avoid long delays
in connection establishment attempts [RFC5461].
2.1.1.14.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC1812], and is generated if a router cannot forward a
packet due to administrative filtering.
2.1.1.14.3. Threats
May reveal filtering policies.
Given that the semantics of this error message are not accurately
specified, some systems might abort transport connections upon
receipt of this error message. [RFC5927].
An attacker can potentially perform a Denial of Service (DoS) attack
against the router by forcing it to generate a high volume of ICMP
Destination Unreachable messages. This can be done by flooding the
router with packets which the attacker knows will result in the
router spending resources in generating a high volume of ICMP
messages. This can be mitigated by rate-limiting the rate of ICMP
messages generated. For rate-limiting ICMPv4 messages see Section
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
4.3.2.8 of [RFC1812].
2.1.1.14.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
May lead to long delays between connection establishment attempts or
long response times that could have been avoided by aborting non-
synchronized connections in response to ICMP soft errors [RFC5461].
2.1.1.15. Host Precedence Violation (Code 14)
2.1.1.15.1. Uses
Signal unreachability condition to the sending system. A number of
systems abort connections in non-synchronized states in response to
this message, to avoid long delays in connection establishment
attempts [RFC5461].
2.1.1.15.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC1812], and is sent by the first hop router to a host
to indicate that a requested precedence is not permitted for the
particular combination of source/destination host or network, upper
layer protocol, and source/destination port
2.1.1.15.3. Threats
May reveal routing policies.
An attacker can potentially perform a Denial of Service (DoS) attack
against the router by forcing it to generate a high volume of ICMP
Destination Unreachable messages. This can be done by flooding the
router with packets which the attacker knows will result in the
router spending resources in generating a high volume of ICMP
messages. This can be mitigated by rate-limiting the rate of ICMP
messages generated. For rate-limiting ICMPv4 messages see Section
4.3.2.8 of [RFC1812].
2.1.1.15.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
May lead to long delays between connection establishment attempts or
long response times that could have been avoided by aborting non-
synchronized connections in response to ICMP soft errors [RFC5461].
2.1.1.16. Precedence Cutoff in Effect (Code 15)
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
2.1.1.16.1. Uses
A number of systems abort connections in non-synchronized states in
response to this message, to avoid long delays in connection
establishment attempts [RFC5461].
2.1.1.16.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC1812], and is sent when the network operators have
imposed a minimum level of precedence required for operation, and a
datagram was sent with a precedence below this level.
2.1.1.16.3. Threats
An attacker can potentially perform a Denial of Service (DoS) attack
against the router by forcing it to generate a high volume of ICMP
Destination Unreachable messages. This can be done by flooding the
router with packets which the attacker knows will result in the
router spending resources in generating a high volume of ICMP
messages. This can be mitigated by rate-limiting the rate of ICMP
messages generated. For rate-limiting ICMPv4 messages see Section
4.3.2.8 of [RFC1812].
2.1.1.16.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
May lead to long delays between connection establishment attempts or
long response times that could have been avoided by aborting non-
synchronized connections in response to ICMP soft errors [RFC5461].
2.1.2. Source Quench (Type 4, Code 0)
2.1.2.1. Uses
Originally meant to aid in congestion-control and flow-control.
Currently ignored by most end-system implementations, because of its
security implications (see [RFC5927]. It is being formally
deprecated by [RFC6633].
2.1.2.2. Message Specification
The Source Quench message was originally specified in [RFC0792]. It
is being formally deprecated by [RFC6633].
2.1.2.3. Threats
Can be exploited for performing throughput-reduction attacks
[RFC5927].
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
2.1.2.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
None.
2.1.3. Redirect (Type 5)
Section 3.2.2.2 of [RFC1122] states that SHOULD NOT send an ICMP
Redirect message, and that a host receiving a Redirect message MUST
update its routing information accordingly, and process the ICMP
redirect according to the rules stated in Section 3.3.1.2 of
[RFC1122]. ICMP redirects that specify a a gateway that is not on
the same connected (sub-) net through which the Redirect arrived, or
that are received from a source other than the first-hop gateway
SHOULD be silently disacarded.
Section 4.3.3.2 of [RFC1812] states that a router MAY ignore ICMP
Redirects when choosing a path for a packet originated by the router
if the router is running a routing protocol or if forwarding is
enabled on the router and on the interface over which the packet is
being sent.
2.1.3.1. Redirect Datagrams for the Network (Code 0)
2.1.3.1.1. Uses
Used by routers to communicate end-systems a better first-hop router
for a particular network. Currently ignored by a large number of
stacks.
2.1.3.1.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC0792].
2.1.3.1.3. Threats
Can be abused by an attacker to redirect all or some traffic to
himself and/or to perform a DoS attack.
This issue could be mitigated by disabling reaction to ICMP Redirect
messages at hosts and/or dropping these messages at the network.
2.1.3.1.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
If the ICMP redirect was originated in some network segment other
than the one it should be forwarded on, there is no operational
impact, as the message is bogus or part of an attack. If an ICMP
Redirect that was locally generated is blocked, the end-system will
not be informed of the better first-hop for reaching the target
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
network, and thus this would result in less-optimum routes being used
to get the target network.
2.1.3.2. Redirect Datagrams for the Host (Code 1)
2.1.3.2.1. Uses
Used by routers to communicate end-systems a better first-hop for a
particular host. Currently ignored my a large number of stacks.
2.1.3.2.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC0792].
2.1.3.2.3. Threats
Can be abused by an attacker to redirect all or some traffic to
himself and/or to perform a DoS attack.
This issue could be mitigated by disabling reaction to ICMP Redirect
messages at hosts and/or dropping these messages at the network.
2.1.3.2.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
If the ICMP redirect was originated in some network segment other
than the one it should be forwarded on, there is no operational
impact, as the message is bogus or part of an attack. If an ICMP
Redirect that was locally generated is blocked, the end-system will
not be informed of the better first-hop for reaching the target
network, and thus this would result in less-optimum routes being used
to get the target network.
2.1.3.3. Redirect datagrams for the Type of Service and Network (Code
2)
2.1.3.3.1. Uses
Used by routers to communicate end-systems a better first-hop router
for a particular network. Currently ignored my a large number of
stacks.
2.1.3.3.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC0792].
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
2.1.3.3.3. Threats
Can be abused by an attacker to direct all or some traffic to himself
and/or to perform a DoS attack.
This issue could be mitigated by disabling reaction to ICMP Redirect
messages at hosts and/or dropping these messages at the network.
2.1.3.3.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
If the ICMP redirect was originated in some network segment other
than the one it should be forwarded on, there is no operational
impact, as the message is bogus or part of an attack. If an ICMP
Redirect that was locally generated is blocked, the end-system will
not be informed of the better first-hop for reaching the target
network, and thus this would result in less-optimum routes being used
to get the target network.
2.1.3.4. Redirect Datagrams for the Type of Service and Host (Code 3)
2.1.3.4.1. Uses
Used by routers to communicate end-systems a better first-hop for a
particular host. Currently ignored my a large number of stacks.
2.1.3.4.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC0792].
2.1.3.4.3. Threats
Can be abused by an attacker to redirect all or some traffic to
himself and/or to perform a DoS attack.
2.1.3.4.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
If the ICMP redirect was originated in some network segment other
than the one it should be forwarded on, there is no operational
impact, as the message is bogus or part of an attack. If an ICMP
Redirect that was locally generated is blocked, the end-system will
not be informed of the better first-hop for reaching the target
network, and thus this would result in less-optimum routes being used
to get the target network.
2.1.4. Time Exceeded (Type 11)
Section 3.2.2.4 of [RFC1122] states that an incoming Time Exceeded
message MUST be passed to the transport layer.
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
Section 4.3.3.4 of [RFC1812] states that when the router receives
(i.e., is destined for the router) a Time Exceeded message, it MUST
comply with [RFC1122].
2.1.4.1. Time to Live Exceeded in Transit (Code 0)
2.1.4.1.1. Uses
Used for the traceroute troubleshooting tool. Signals unreachability
condition due to routing loops. A number of systems abort
connections in non-synchronized states in response to this message,
to avoid long delays in connection establishment attempts [RFC5461].
2.1.4.1.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC0792].
[RFC1812] states that a router MUST generate a Time Exceeded message
Code 0 (In Transit) when it discards a packet due to an expired TTL
field. Section 4.2.3.9 of [RFC1122] states that this message should
be handled by TCP in the same way as Destination Unreachable codes 0,
1, 5.
2.1.4.1.3. Threats
Can be used for network mapping.
2.1.4.1.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
Breaks the traceroute tool. May lead to long delays between
connection establishment attempts or long response times that could
have been avoided by aborting non-synchronized connections in
response to ICMP soft errors [RFC5461].
2.1.4.2. Fragment Reassembly Time Exceeded (Code 1)
2.1.4.2.1. Uses
Signals fragment reassembly timeout. A number of systems abort
connections in non-synchronized states in response to this message,
to avoid long delays in connection establishment attempts [RFC5461].
2.1.4.2.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC0792]. [RFC0792] states this message may be sent by a
host reassembling a fragmented datagram if it cannot complete the
reassembly due to missing fragments within its time limit. Section
4.2.3.9 of [RFC1122] states that this message should be handled by
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
TCP in the same way as Destination Unreachable codes 0, 1, 5.
2.1.4.2.3. Threats
May reveal the timeout value used by a system for fragment
reassembly, and thus aid in evading NIDSs and fingerprinting the
operating system in use by the sender of this error message.
2.1.4.2.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
May lead to long delays between connection establishment attempts or
long response times that could have been avoided by aborting non-
synchronized connections in response to ICMP soft errors [RFC5461].
2.1.5. Parameter Problem (Type 12)
Section 3.2.2.5 of [RFC1122] states that a host SHOULD generate
Parameter Problem messages. An incoming Parameter Problem message
MUST be passed to the transport layer, and it MAY be reported to the
user. Section 4.2.3.9 of [RFC1122] states that this message should
be handled by TCP in the same way as Destination Unreachable codes 0,
1, 5.
Section 4.3.3.5 of [RFC1812] states that a router MUST generate a
Parameter Problem message for any error not specifically covered by
another ICMP message. The IP header field or IP option including the
byte indicated by the pointer field MUST be included unchanged in the
IP header returned with this ICMP message. Section 4.3.2 of the same
document defines an exception to this rule.
2.1.5.1. Pointer Indicates the Error (Code 0)
2.1.5.1.1. Uses
A number of systems abort connections in non-synchronized states in
response to this message, to avoid long delays in connection
establishment attempts [RFC5461].
2.1.5.1.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC0792].
2.1.5.1.3. Threats
May be used to fingerprint the operating system of the host sending
this error message.
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
2.1.5.1.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
May lead to long delays between connection establishment attempts or
long response times that could have been avoided by aborting non-
synchronized connections in response to ICMP soft errors [RFC5461].
2.1.5.2. Required Option is Missing (Code 1)
2.1.5.2.1. Uses
This ICMP Parameter Problem message Code is sent whenever a received
IP packet should have contained a particular IP Option but the actual
received IP packet did not contain that IP option. At present, a
common situation in which this is ICMP Parameter Problem message Type
is likely to arise is in certain high-security IP deployments where
one or more IP Security options (e.g. RFC-1108, CIPSO) are deployed,
and a packet is missing one of those security options. Other similar
situations might also exist now, or in future.
2.1.5.2.2. Message Specification
Defined in Section 3.2.2.5 of [RFC1122].
2.1.5.2.3. Threats
None.
2.1.5.2.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
May lead to long delays between connection establishment attempts or
long response times that could have been avoided by aborting non-
synchronized connections in response to ICMP soft errors [RFC5461].
Additionally, blocking this ICMP message would make network trouble-
shooting difficult or impossible in networks where IP Security
Options (e.g. CIPSO, IPSO) are deployed. So blocking these ICMP
messages could lead to a kind of denial-of-service attack on such
deployments.
2.2. ICMPv4 Informational Messages
2.2.1. Echo or Echo Reply Message
2.2.1.1. Echo Message (Type 8, Code 0)
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
2.2.1.1.1. Uses
Used by the ping troubleshooting tool.
2.2.1.1.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC0792].
Section 3.2.2.6 of [RFC1122] states that every host MUST implement an
ICMP Echo server function that receives Echo Requests and sends
corresponding Echo Replies. A host SHOULD also implement an
application-layer interface for sending an Echo Request and receiving
an Echo Reply, for diagnostic purposes. Section 3.2.2.6 of [RFC1122]
includes a number of requirements for the processing of ICMP Echo
messages and the generation of the corresponding replies.
Section 4.3.3.6 of [RFC1812] contains a number of requirements with
respect to the generation and processing of ICMP Echo or Echo Reply
messsages, including: maximum ICMP message size all routers are
required to receive, a number of factors that may determine whether a
router responds (or not) to an ICMP Echo message, the implementation
of a user/application-layer interface, and the processing of Record
Route, Timestamp and/or Source Route options that might be present in
an ICMP Echo message.
2.2.1.1.3. Threats
Can be used for network mapping [icmp-scanning]. This vector could
be partially mitigated by applying rate-limit to this traffic.
Has been exploited to perform Smurf attacks [smurf]. A router could
mitigate this by dropping ICMP echor request messages directed to any
of its directly-connected subnets.
2.2.1.1.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
Filtering this error message will break the ping tool. The best
current practice is to rate-limit this ICMP message.
2.2.1.2. Echo Reply Message (Type 0, Code 0)
2.2.1.2.1. Uses
Used by the ping troubleshooting tool.
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
2.2.1.2.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC0792].
Section 3.2.2.6 of [RFC1122] states that every host MUST implement an
ICMP Echo server function that receives Echo Requests and sends
corresponding Echo Replies. A host SHOULD also implement an
application-layer interface for sending an Echo Request and receiving
an Echo Reply, for diagnostic purposes. Section 3.2.2.6 of [RFC1122]
includes a number of requirements for the processing of ICMP Echo
messages and the generation of the corresponding replies.
Section 4.3.3.6 of [RFC1812] contains a number of requirements with
respect to the generation and processing of ICMP Echo or Echo Reply
messsages, including: maximum ICMP message size all routers are
required to receive, a number of factors that may determine whether a
router responds (or not) to an ICMP Echo message, the implementation
of a user/application-layer interface, and the processing of Record
Route, Timestamp and/or Source Route options that might be present in
an ICMP Echo message.
2.2.1.2.3. Threats
Can be used for network mapping [icmp-scanning]. Has been exploited
to perform Smurf attacks [smurf].
2.2.1.2.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
Filtering this error message will break the ping tool. The best
current practice is to rate-limit this ICMP message.
2.2.2. Router Solicitation or Router Advertisement message
2.2.2.1. Router Solicitation Message (Type 10, Code 0)
2.2.2.1.1. Uses
Used by some systems as form of stateless autoconfiguration, to
solicit routers on a network segment.
2.2.2.1.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC1256]
Section 4.3.3.10 of [RFC1812] states that an IP router MUST support
the router part of the ICMP Router Discovery Protocol on all
connected networks on which the router supports either IP multicast
or IP broadcast addressing. The implementation MUST include all the
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
configuration variables specified for routers, with the specified
defaults.
2.2.2.1.3. Threats
Can be used for network mapping (e.g., learning about routers on a
network segment.).
2.2.2.1.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
This mesages should not be routed. Therefore, there is no
operational/interoperability impact if blocked.
2.2.2.2. Router Advertisement Message (Type 9, Code 0)
2.2.2.2.1. Uses
Used to advertise routers on a network segment.
2.2.2.2.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC1256]
Section 4.3.3.10 of [RFC1812] states that an IP router MUST support
the router part of the ICMP Router Discovery Protocol on all
connected networks on which the router supports either IP multicast
or IP broadcast addressing. The implementation MUST include all the
configuration variables specified for routers, with the specified
defaults.
2.2.2.2.3. Threats
Can be spoofed by an attacker to direct all traffic sent on a network
segment to itself and/or to perform a DoS attack.
2.2.2.2.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
This mesages should not be routed. Therefore, there is no
operational/interoperability impact if blocked.
2.2.3. Timestamp or Timestamp Reply Message
2.2.3.1. Timestamp Message (Type 13, Code 0)
2.2.3.1.1. Uses
May be used as a fall-back mechanism when NTP fails (?).
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
2.2.3.1.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC0792].
Section 3.2.2.8 of [RFC1122] states that a host MAY implement
Timestamp and Timestamp Reply. For hosts that implement these
messages, a number of requirements are stated.
2.2.3.1.3. Threats
Can be used for network mapping, and device fingerprinting.
2.2.3.1.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
None.
2.2.3.2. Timestamp Reply Message (Type 14, Code 0)
2.2.3.2.1. Uses
May be used as a fall-back mechanism when NTP fails (?).
2.2.3.2.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC0792].
2.2.3.2.3. Threats
Can be used for network mapping and device fingerprinting.
2.2.3.2.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
Systems will not be able to use ICMP timestamps as a fall-bak
mechanism when NTP fails.
2.2.4. Information Request or Information Reply Message (Deprecated)
These messages are described in [RFC0792] as "a way for a host to
find out the number of the network it is on". Section 3.2.2.7 of
[RFC1122] and Section 4.3.3.7 of [RFC1812] deprecate the use of these
messages.
2.2.4.1. Information Request Message (Type 15, Code 0)
2.2.4.1.1. Uses
These messages originally provided a basic and simple mechanism for
dynamic host configuration. However, they have been deprecated.
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
2.2.4.1.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC0792].
These messages are described in [RFC0792] as "a way for a host to
find out the number of the network it is on". Section 3.2.2.7 of
[RFC1122] and Section 4.3.3.7 of [RFC1812] deprecate the use of these
messages.
2.2.4.1.3. Threats
Allows for OS (Operating Sytem) and device fingerprintng. Since this
messages have been deprecated, the best possible mitigation is to not
generate and to drop any received Information Request messages.
2.2.4.1.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
None.
2.2.4.2. Information Reply Message (Type 16, Code 0)
2.2.4.2.1. Uses
These messages originally provided a basic and simple mechanism for
dynamic host configuration. However, they have been deprecated.
2.2.4.2.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC0792].
These messages are described in [RFC0792] as "a way for a host to
find out the number of the network it is on". Section 3.2.2.7 of
[RFC1122] and Section 4.3.3.7 of [RFC1812] deprecate the use of these
messages.
2.2.4.2.3. Threats
Allow for OS and device fingerprintng.
2.2.4.2.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
None.
2.2.5. Address Mask Request or Address Mask Reply
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
2.2.5.1. Address Mask Request (Type 17, Code 0)
2.2.5.1.1. Uses
Was originally defined as a means for system stateless
autoconfiguration (to look-up the address mask).
2.2.5.1.2. Message Specification
Defined in RFC0950. Section 3.2.2.9 of [RFC1122] includes a number
of requirements regarding the generation and processing of this
message.
Section 3.2.2.9 of [RFC1122] states that a host MAY implement sending
ICMP Address Mask Request(s) and receiving ICMP Address Mask
Reply(s). Section 4.3.3.9 of [RFC1812] states that a router MUST
implement support for receiving ICMP Address Mask Request messages
and responding with ICMP Address Mask Reply messages.
2.2.5.1.3. Threats
Can be used for network mapping, and OS fingerprinting.
2.2.5.1.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
None.
2.2.5.2. Address Mask Reply (Type 18, Code 0)
2.2.5.2.1. Uses
Was originally defined as a means for system stateless
autoconfiguration (to allow systems to dynamically obtain the address
mask). While they have not been deprecated, they are not used in
practice.
2.2.5.2.2. Message Specification
Defined in RFC0950. Section 3.2.2.9 of [RFC1122] includes a number
of requirements regarding the generation and processing of this
message.
Section 3.2.2.9 of [RFC1122] states that a host MAY implement sending
ICMP Address Mask Request(s) and receiving ICMP Address Mask
Reply(s). Section 4.3.3.9 of [RFC1812] states that a router MUST
implement support for receiving ICMP Address Mask Request messages
and responding with ICMP Address Mask Reply messages.
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
2.2.5.2.3. Threats
Can be used for network mapping, and OS fingerprinting.
2.2.5.2.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
None.
3. Internet Control Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6)
Table 2 summarizes the recommendations with respect to what a device
SHOULD do when generating, forwarding, or receiving ICMPv6.
+---------------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------+
| ICMPv6 Message | Sourced | Through | Destined |
| | from | Device | to Device |
| | Device | | |
+---------------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------+
| ICMPv6-unreach | N/A | N/A | N/A |
+---------------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------+
| ICMPv6-unreach-no-route | Rate-L | Permit | Rate-L |
+---------------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------+
| ICMPv6-unreach-admin-prohibited | Rate-L | Permit | Rate-L |
+---------------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------+
| ICMPv6-unreach-beyond-scope | Rate-L | Deny | Rate-L |
+---------------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------+
| ICMPv6-unreach-addr | Rate-L | Permit | Rate-L |
+---------------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------+
| ICMPv6-unreach-port | Rate-L | Permit | Rate-L |
+---------------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------+
| ICMPv6-unreach-source-addr | Rate-L | Deny | Rate-L |
+---------------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------+
| ICMPv6-unreach-reject-route | Rate-L | Permit | Rate-L |
+---------------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------+
| ICMPv6-too-big | Send | Permit | Rate-L |
+---------------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------+
| ICMPv6-timed | N/A | N/A | N/A |
+---------------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------+
| ICMPv6-timed-hop-limit | Send | Permit | Rate-L |
+---------------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------+
| ICMPv6-timed-reass | Send | Permit | Rate-L |
+---------------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------+
| ICMPv6-parameter | Rate-L | Permit | Rate-L |
+---------------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------+
| ICMPv6-parameter-err-header | Rate-L | Deny | Rate-L |
+---------------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------+
| ICMPv6-parameter-unrec-header | Rate-L | Deny | Rate-L |
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
| ICMPv6-parameter-unrec-option | Rate-L | Permit | Rate-L |
+---------------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------+
| ICMPv6-err-private-exp-100 | Send | Deny | Rate-L |
+---------------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------+
| ICMPv6-err-private-exp-101 | Send | Deny | Rate-L |
+---------------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------+
| ICMPv6-err-expansion | Send | Permit | Rate-L |
+---------------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------+
| ICMPv6-echo-message | Send | Permit | Rate-L |
+---------------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------+
| ICMPv6-echo-reply | Send | Permit | Rate-L |
+---------------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------+
| ICMPv6-info-private-exp-200 | Send | Deny | Rate-L |
+---------------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------+
| ICMPv6-info-private-exp-201 | Send | Deny | Rate-L |
+---------------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------+
| ICMPv6-info-expansion | Send | Permit | Rate-L |
+---------------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------+
Legend: "Rate-L" = Rate-Limit
Table 2: Summary Recommendations for ICMPv6
3.1. ICMPv6 Error Messages
The ICMPv6 specification leaves it up to the implementation the
reaction to ICMP error messages. Therefore, the ICMP attacks
described in [RFC5927] might or might not be effective.
3.1.1. Destination Unreachable (Type 1)
3.1.1.1. No route to destination (Code 0)
3.1.1.1.1. Uses
Used to indicate that the ofending packet cannot be delivered because
there is no route towords the destination address. A number of
systems abort connections in non-synchronized states in response to
this message, to avoid long delays in connection establishment
attempts [RFC5461].
3.1.1.1.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC4443].
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
3.1.1.1.3. Threats
An attacker can potentially perform a Denial of Service (DoS) attack
against the router by forcing it to generate a high volume of ICMP
Destination Unreachable messages. This can be done by flooding the
router with packets which the attacker knows will result in the
router spending resources in generating a high volume of ICMPv6
messages. This can be mitigated by rate-limiting the rate of ICMPv6
messages generated. For rate-limiting ICMPv6 messages see Section
2.4, paragraph (f), of [RFC4443].
3.1.1.1.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
May lead to long delays between connection establishment attempts or
long response times that could have been avoided by aborting non-
synchronized connections in response to ICMP soft errors [RFC5461].
3.1.1.2. Communication with destination administratively prohibited
(Code 1)
3.1.1.2.1. Uses
A number of systems abort connections in non-synchronized states in
response to this message, to avoid long delays in connection
establishment attempts [RFC5461].
3.1.1.2.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC4443].
3.1.1.2.3. Threats
May reveal filtering policies.
An attacker can potentially perform a Denial of Service (DoS) attack
against the router by forcing it to generate a high volume of ICMP
Destination Unreachable messages. This can be done by flooding the
router with packets which the attacker knows will result in the
router spending resources in generating a high volume of ICMPv6
messages. This can be mitigated by rate-limiting the rate of ICMPv6
messages generated. For rate-limiting ICMPv6 messages see Section
2.4, paragraph (f), of [RFC4443].
3.1.1.2.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
May lead to long delays between connection establishment attempts or
long response times that could have been avoided by aborting non-
synchronized connections in response to ICMP soft errors [RFC5461].
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
3.1.1.3. Beyond scope of source address (Code 2)
3.1.1.3.1. Uses
A number of systems abort connections in non-synchronized states in
response to this message, to avoid long delays in connection
establishment attempts [RFC5461].
3.1.1.3.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC4443].
3.1.1.3.3. Threats
3.1.1.3.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
May lead to long delays between connection establishment attempts or
long response times that could have been avoided by aborting non-
synchronized connections in response to ICMP soft errors [RFC5461].
3.1.1.4. Address unreachable (Code 3)
3.1.1.4.1. Uses
A number of systems abort connections in non-synchronized states in
response to this message, to avoid long delays in connection
establishment attempts [RFC5461].
3.1.1.4.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC4443].
3.1.1.4.3. Threats
An attacker can potentially perform a Denial of Service (DoS) attack
against the router by forcing it to generate a high volume of ICMPv6
Destination Unreachable messages. This can be done by flooding the
router with packets which the attacker knows will result in the
router spending resources in generating a high volume of ICMPv6
messages. This can be mitigated by rate-limiting the rate of ICMPv6
messages generated. For rate-limiting ICMPv6 messages see Section
2.4, paragraph (f), of [RFC4443].
3.1.1.4.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
May lead to long delays between connection establishment attempts or
long response times that could have been avoided by aborting non-
synchronized connections in response to ICMP soft errors [RFC5461].
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
3.1.1.5. Port unreachable (Code 4)
3.1.1.5.1. Uses
Used to identicate that there is no listening process on the target
transport protocol port.
3.1.1.5.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC4443].
3.1.1.5.3. Threats
This error message might used to perform Denial of Service (DoS)
attacks against transport protocols. [RFC5927] describes the use of
this error message to attack TCP connections.
An attacker can potentially perform a Denial of Service (DoS) attack
against the router by forcing it to generate a high volume of ICMPv6
Destination Unreachable messages. This can be done by flooding the
router with packets which the attacker knows will result in the
router spending resources in generating a high volume of ICMPv6
messages. This can be mitigated by rate-limiting the rate of ICMPv6
messages generated. For rate-limiting ICMPv6 messages see Section
2.4, paragraph (f), of [RFC4443].
3.1.1.5.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
May lead to long delays between connection establishment attempts or
long response times that could have been avoided by aborting non-
synchronized connections in response to ICMP soft errors [RFC5461].
3.1.1.6. Source address failed ingress/egress policy (Code 5)
3.1.1.6.1. Uses
A number of systems abort connections in non-synchronized states in
response to this message, to avoid long delays in connection
establishment attempts [RFC5461].
3.1.1.6.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC4443].
3.1.1.6.3. Threats
May reveal filtering policies.
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
An attacker can potentially perform a Denial of Service (DoS) attack
against the router by forcing it to generate a high volume of ICMP
Destination Unreachable messages. This can be done by flooding the
router with packets which the attacker knows will result in the
router spending resources in generating a high volume of ICMPv6
messages. This can be mitigated by rate-limiting the rate of ICMPv6
messages generated. For rate-limiting ICMPv6 messages see Section
2.4, paragraph (f), of [RFC4443].
3.1.1.6.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
May lead to long delays between connection establishment attempts or
long response times that could have been avoided by aborting non-
synchronized connections in response to ICMP soft errors [RFC5461].
3.1.1.7. Reject route to destination (Code 6)
3.1.1.7.1. Uses
A number of systems abort connections in non-synchronized states in
response to this message, to avoid long delays in connection
establishment attempts [RFC5461].
3.1.1.7.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC4443].
3.1.1.7.3. Threats
An attacker can potentially perform a Denial of Service (DoS) attack
against the router by forcing it to generate a high volume of ICMP
Destination Unreachable messages. This can be done by flooding the
router with packets which the attacker knows will result in the
router spending resources in generating a high volume of ICMPv6
messages. This can be mitigated by rate-limiting the rate of ICMPv6
messages generated. For rate-limiting ICMPv6 messages see Section
2.4, paragraph (f), of [RFC4443].
3.1.1.7.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
May lead to long delays between connection establishment attempts or
long response times that could have been avoided by aborting non-
synchronized connections in response to ICMP soft errors [RFC5461].
3.1.2. Packet Too Big Message (Type 2, Code 0)
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
3.1.2.1. Uses
Used for the Path-MTU discovery mechanism for IPv6 defined in
[RFC1981].
3.1.2.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC4443].
3.1.2.3. Threats
This error message can be used to perform Denial of Service (DoS)
attacks against transport protocols. [RFC5927] describes the use of
this error message to attack TCP connections.
3.1.2.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
Filtering this error message will break the Path-MTU Discovery
mechanism defined in [RFC1981], which could lead to a Denial of
Service (unless the sending node implements some for of Path-MTU
blackhole detection).
3.1.3. Time Exceeded Message (Type 3)
3.1.3.1. Hop limit exceeded in transit (Code 0)
3.1.3.1.1. Uses
A number of systems abort connections in non-synchronized states in
response to this message, to avoid long delays in connection
establishment attempts [RFC5461].
3.1.3.1.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC4443].
3.1.3.1.3. Threats
May be used for network mapping.
3.1.3.1.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
May lead to long delays between connection establishment attempts or
long response times that could have been avoided by aborting non-
synchronized connections in response to ICMP soft errors [RFC5461].
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
3.1.3.2. Fragment reassembly time exceeded (Code 1)
3.1.3.2.1. Uses
Used to signal a timeout in fragment reassembly. A number of systems
abort connections in non-synchronized states in response to this
message, to avoid long delays in connection establishment attempts
[RFC5461].
3.1.3.2.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC4443].
3.1.3.2.3. Threats
May reveal the timeout value used by a system for fragment
reassembly, and thus help to perform remote OS fingerprinting.
Additionally, revealing the fragment reassembly timeout value may
help an attacker to evade a NIDS.
3.1.3.2.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
May lead to long delays between connection establishment attempts or
long response times that could have been avoided by aborting non-
synchronized connections in response to ICMP soft errors [RFC5461].
3.1.4. Parameter Problem Message (Type 4)
3.1.4.1. Erroneous header field encountered (Code 0)
3.1.4.1.1. Uses
A number of systems abort connections in non-synchronized states in
response to this message, to avoid long delays in connection
establishment attempts [RFC5461].
3.1.4.1.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC4443].
3.1.4.1.3. Threats
This error message might used to perform Denial of Service (DoS)
attacks against transport protocols. [RFC5927] describes the use of
this error message to attack TCP connections.
An attacker can potentially perform a Denial of Service (DoS) attack
against the router by forcing it to generate a high volume of ICMP
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
Parameter Problem messages. This can be done by flooding the router
with packets which the attacker knows will result in the router
spending resources in generating a high volume of ICMPv6 messages.
This can be mitigated by rate-limiting the rate of ICMPv6 messages
generated. For rate-limiting ICMPv6 messages see Section 2.4,
paragraph (f), of [RFC4443].
3.1.4.1.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
May lead to long delays between connection establishment attempts or
long response times that could have been avoided by aborting non-
synchronized connections in response to ICMP soft errors [RFC5461].
3.1.4.2. Unrecognized Next Header Type encountered (Code 1)
3.1.4.2.1. Uses
A number of systems abort connections in non-synchronized states in
response to this message, to avoid long delays in connection
establishment attempts [RFC5461].
3.1.4.2.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC4443].
3.1.4.2.3. Threats
This error message might used to perform Denial of Service (DoS)
attacks against transport protocols. [RFC5927] describes the use of
this error message to attack TCP connections.
An attacker can potentially perform a Denial of Service (DoS) attack
against the router by forcing it to generate a high volume of ICMP
Parameter Problem messages. This can be done by flooding the router
with packets which the attacker knows will result in the router
spending resources in generating a high volume of ICMPv6 messages.
This can be mitigated by rate-limiting the rate of ICMPv6 messages
generated. For rate-limiting ICMPv6 messages see Section 2.4,
paragraph (f), of [RFC4443].
3.1.4.2.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
May lead to long delays between connection establishment attempts or
long response times that could have been avoided by aborting non-
synchronized connections in response to ICMP soft errors [RFC5461].
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
3.1.4.3. Unrecognized IPv6 option encountered (Code 2)
3.1.4.3.1. Uses
A number of systems abort connections in non-synchronized states in
response to this message, to avoid long delays in connection
establishment attempts [RFC5461].
3.1.4.3.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC4443].
3.1.4.3.3. Threats
An attacker can potentially perform a Denial of Service (DoS) attack
against the router by forcing it to generate a high volume of ICMP
Parameter Problem messages. This can be done by flooding the router
with packets which the attacker knows will result in the router
spending resources in generating a high volume of ICMPv6 messages.
This can be mitigated by rate-limiting the rate of ICMPv6 messages
generated. For rate-limiting ICMPv6 messages see Section 2.4,
paragraph (f), of [RFC4443].
3.1.4.3.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
May lead to long delays between connection establishment attempts or
long response times that could have been avoided by aborting non-
synchronized connections in response to ICMP soft errors [RFC5461].
3.1.5. Private experimentation (Type 100)
3.1.5.1. Uses
Used for performing controlled experiments with ICMPv6 messages
before a specific ICMPv6 Type is formally assigned by IANA.
3.1.5.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC4443].
3.1.5.3. Threats
The security implications of this message Type will depend on the
specific experiment the message is being used for and whether the
node this message is destined to implements the aforementioned
"experiment".
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
3.1.5.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
None (this message Type is meant for experimentation rather than
"production").
3.1.6. Private experimentation (Type 101)
3.1.6.1. Uses
Used for performing controlled experiments with ICMPv6 messages
before a specific ICMPv6 Type is formally assigned by IANA.
3.1.6.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC4443].
3.1.6.3. Threats
The security implications of this message Type will depend on the
specific experiment the message is being used for and whether the
node this message is destined to implements the aforementioned
"experiment".
3.1.6.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
None (this message Type is meant for controlled experimentation
rather than "production").
3.1.7. Reserved for expansion of ICMPv6 error messages (Type 127)
3.1.7.1. Uses
Type value 127 is reserved for future expansion of the type value
range if there is a shortage in the future.
3.1.7.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC4443].
3.1.7.3. Threats
None.
3.1.7.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
It would prevent expansion of the Type value range, and hence prevent
extension of the ICMPv6 protocol.
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
3.2. ICMPv6 Informational messages
3.2.1. Echo Request or Echo Reply Message
3.2.1.1. Echo Request message (Type 128, Code 0)
3.2.1.1.1. Uses
Used by the ping tool to test reachability.
3.2.1.1.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC4443].
3.2.1.1.3. Threats
Can be used for network mapping [icmp-scanning] and for performing
Smurf DoS attacks [smurf].
3.2.1.1.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
Filtering this error message will break the ping tool. The best
current practice is to rate-limit this ICMP message.
3.2.1.2. Echo reply message (Type 129, Code 0)
3.2.1.2.1. Uses
Used by the ping tool to test reachability.
3.2.1.2.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC4443].
3.2.1.2.3. Threats
Can be used for network mapping [icmp-scanning] and for performing
Smurf DoS attacks [smurf].
3.2.1.2.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
Filtering this error message will break the ping tool. The best
current practice is to rate-limit this ICMP message.
3.2.2. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD)
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
3.2.2.1. Multicast Listener Query (Type 130)
3.2.2.1.1. Uses
3.2.2.1.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC2710].
3.2.2.1.3. Threats
3.2.2.1.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
3.2.2.2. Multicast Listener Report (Type 131)
3.2.2.2.1. Uses
3.2.2.2.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC2710].
3.2.2.2.3. Threats
3.2.2.2.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
3.2.2.3. Multicast Listener Done (Type 132)
3.2.2.3.1. Uses
3.2.2.3.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC2710].
3.2.2.3.3. Threats
3.2.2.3.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
3.2.2.4. Version 2 Multicast Listener Report (Type 143)
3.2.2.4.1. Uses
3.2.2.4.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC3810].
3.2.2.4.3. Threats
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
3.2.2.4.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
3.2.3. Neighbor Discovery (ND)
3.2.3.1. Router Solicitation (Type 133)
3.2.3.1.1. Uses
3.2.3.1.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC4861].
3.2.3.1.3. Threats
3.2.3.1.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
3.2.3.2. Router Advertisement (Type 134)
3.2.3.2.1. Uses
3.2.3.2.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC4861].
3.2.3.2.3. Threats
3.2.3.2.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
3.2.3.3. Neighbor Solicitation (Type 135)
3.2.3.3.1. Uses
3.2.3.3.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC4861].
3.2.3.3.3. Threats
3.2.3.3.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
3.2.3.4. Neighbor Advertisement (Type 136)
3.2.3.4.1. Uses
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
3.2.3.4.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC4861].
3.2.3.4.3. Threats
3.2.3.4.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
3.2.3.5. Redirect Message (Type 137)
3.2.3.5.1. Uses
3.2.3.5.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC4861].
3.2.3.5.3. Threats
3.2.3.5.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
3.2.4. Router Renumbering (Type 138)
3.2.4.1. Uses
3.2.4.2. Message Specification
Defined.
3.2.4.3. Threats
3.2.4.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
3.2.5. IPv6 Node Information Queries
3.2.5.1. ICMP Node Information Query (Type 139)
3.2.5.1.1. Uses
3.2.5.1.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC4620].
3.2.5.1.3. Threats
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
3.2.5.1.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
3.2.5.2. ICMP Node Information Response (Type 140)
3.2.5.2.1. Uses
3.2.5.2.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC4620].
3.2.5.2.3. Threats
3.2.5.2.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
3.2.6. IPv6 ND Inverse Discovery
3.2.6.1. Inverse Neighbor Discovery Solicitation Message (Type 141)
3.2.6.1.1. Uses
3.2.6.1.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC3122].
3.2.6.1.3. Threats
3.2.6.1.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
3.2.6.2. Inverse Neighbor Discovery Advertisement Message (Type 142)
3.2.6.2.1. Uses
3.2.6.2.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC3122].
3.2.6.2.3. Threats
3.2.6.2.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
3.2.7. Mobility
3.2.7.1. Home Agent Address Discovery Request Message (Type 144)
3.2.7.1.1. Uses
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
3.2.7.1.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC6275].
3.2.7.1.3. Threats
3.2.7.1.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
3.2.7.2. Home Agent Address Discovery Reply Message (Type 145)
3.2.7.2.1. Uses
3.2.7.2.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC6275].
3.2.7.2.3. Threats
3.2.7.2.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
3.2.7.3. Mobile Prefix Solicitation (Type 146)
3.2.7.3.1. Uses
3.2.7.3.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC6275].
3.2.7.3.3. Threats
3.2.7.3.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
3.2.7.4. Mobile Prefix Advertisement (Type 147)
3.2.7.4.1. Uses
3.2.7.4.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC6275].
3.2.7.4.3. Threats
3.2.7.4.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
3.2.8. SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND)
3.2.8.1. Certification Path Solicitation Message (Type 148)
3.2.8.1.1. Uses
3.2.8.1.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC3971].
3.2.8.1.3. Threats
3.2.8.1.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
3.2.8.2. Certification Path Advertisement Message (Type 149)
3.2.8.2.1. Uses
3.2.8.2.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC3971].
3.2.8.2.3. Threats
3.2.8.2.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
3.2.9. ICMP messages utilized by experimental mobility protocols such
as Seamoby (Type 150)
3.2.9.1. Uses
3.2.9.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC4065].
3.2.9.3. Threats
3.2.9.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
3.2.10. Multicast Router Discovery
3.2.10.1. Multicast Router Advertisement (Type 151)
3.2.10.1.1. Uses
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
3.2.10.1.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC4286].
3.2.10.1.3. Threats
3.2.10.1.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
3.2.10.2. Multicast Router Solicitation (Type 152)
3.2.10.2.1. Uses
3.2.10.2.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC4286].
3.2.10.2.3. Threats
3.2.10.2.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
3.2.10.3. Multicast Router Termination (Type 153)
3.2.10.3.1. Uses
3.2.10.3.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC4286].
3.2.10.3.3. Threats
3.2.10.3.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
3.2.11. FMIPv6 Messages (Type 154)
3.2.11.1. Uses
3.2.11.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC5568].
3.2.11.3. Threats
3.2.11.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
3.2.12. RPL Control Message (Type 155)
3.2.12.1. Uses
3.2.12.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC6550].
3.2.12.3. Threats
3.2.12.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
3.2.13. Private experimentation (Type 200)
3.2.13.1. Uses
Used for performing controlled experiments with ICMPv6 messages
before a specific ICMPv6 Type is formally assigned by IANA.
3.2.13.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC4443].
3.2.13.3. Threats
The security implications of this message Type will depend on the
specific experiment the message is being used for and whether the
node this message is destined to implements the aforementioned
"experiment".
3.2.13.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
None (this message Type is meant for controlled experimentation
rather than "production").
3.2.14. Private experimentation (Type 201)
3.2.14.1. Uses
Used for performing controlled experiments with ICMPv6 messages
before a specific ICMPv6 Type is formally assigned by IANA.
3.2.14.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC4443].
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
3.2.14.3. Threats
The security implications of this message Type will depend on the
specific experiment the message is being used for and whether the
node this message is destined to implements the aforementioned
"experiment".
3.2.14.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
None (this message Type is meant for controlled experimentation
rather than "production").
3.2.15. Reserved for expansion of ICMPv6 informational messages (Type
255)
3.2.15.1. Uses
Type value 255 is reserved for future expansion of the type value
range if there is a shortage in the future.
3.2.15.2. Message Specification
Defined in [RFC4443].
3.2.15.3. Threats
None.
3.2.15.4. Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
It would prevent expansion of the Type value range, and hence prevent
extension of the ICMPv6 protocol.
4. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
5. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce any new security implications. It
attempts to help mitigate security threats that rely on ICMP or
ICMPv6 messages, through packet filtering and rate-limiting.
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 55]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
6. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank (in alphabetical order) Steinthor
Bjarnason, Alfred Hoenes, and Panos Kampanakis, for their valuable
feedback on earlier versions of this document.
The survey of ICMP specifications is based on a yet-to-be-published
internet-draft on ICMP by Fernando Gont and Carlos Pignataro. This
document borrows its structure from the "ICMP filtering" wiki started
by George Jones.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC0792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
RFC 792, September 1981.
[RFC1122] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989.
[RFC1191] Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191,
November 1990.
[RFC1256] Deering, S., "ICMP Router Discovery Messages", RFC 1256,
September 1991.
[RFC1812] Baker, F., "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers",
RFC 1812, June 1995.
[RFC1981] McCann, J., Deering, S., and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery
for IP version 6", RFC 1981, August 1996.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast
Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710,
October 1999.
[RFC3122] Conta, A., "Extensions to IPv6 Neighbor Discovery for
Inverse Discovery Specification", RFC 3122, June 2001.
[RFC3810] Vida, R. and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery
Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004.
[RFC3971] Arkko, J., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander, "SEcure
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 56]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971, March 2005.
[RFC4065] Kempf, J., "Instructions for Seamoby and Experimental
Mobility Protocol IANA Allocations", RFC 4065, July 2005.
[RFC4286] Haberman, B. and J. Martin, "Multicast Router Discovery",
RFC 4286, December 2005.
[RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.
[RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, "Internet Control
Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol
Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, March 2006.
[RFC4620] Crawford, M. and B. Haberman, "IPv6 Node Information
Queries", RFC 4620, August 2006.
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
September 2007.
[RFC5568] Koodli, R., "Mobile IPv6 Fast Handovers", RFC 5568,
July 2009.
[RFC6275] Perkins, C., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
in IPv6", RFC 6275, July 2011.
[RFC6550] Winter, T., Thubert, P., Brandt, A., Hui, J., Kelsey, R.,
Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur, JP., and R.
Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and
Lossy Networks", RFC 6550, March 2012.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC5461] Gont, F., "TCP's Reaction to Soft Errors", RFC 5461,
February 2009.
[RFC5927] Gont, F., "ICMP Attacks against TCP", RFC 5927, July 2010.
[RFC6633] Gont, F., "Deprecation of ICMP Source Quench Messages",
RFC 6633, May 2012.
[icmp-scanning]
Arkin, 0., "ICMP Usage in Scanning: The Complete Know-
How", http://www.sys-security.com/archive/papers/
ICMP_Scanning_v3.0.pdf, 2001.
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 57]
Internet-Draft ICMP Filtering July 2013
[smurf] CERT, "CERT Advisory CA-1998-01: Smurf IP Denial-of-
Service Attacks",
http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-1998-01.html, 1998.
Authors' Addresses
Fernando Gont
Universidad Tecnologica Nacional / Facultad Regional Haedo
Pueyrredon 76, 3A
Ramos Mejia, Provincia de Buenos Aires 1704
Argentina
Phone: +54 11 4650 8472
Email: fernando@gont.com.ar
URI: http://www.gont.com.ar
Guillermo Gont
SI6 Networks
Evaristo Carriego 2644
Haedo, Provincia de Buenos Aires 1706
Argentina
Phone: +54 11 4650 8472
Email: ggont@si6networks.com
URI: http://www.si6networks.com
Carlos Pignataro
Cisco Systems, Inc.
7200-12 Kit Creek Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
US
Email: cpignata@cisco.com
Gont, et al. Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 58]
