Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Upcoming SlideShare
Black ops 2012
Black ops 2012
Loading in …3
1 of 85

Black Ops of TCP/IP 2011 (Black Hat USA 2011)



Download to read offline

Interesting network tricks

Related Books

Free with a 30 day trial from Scribd

See all

Black Ops of TCP/IP 2011 (Black Hat USA 2011)

  1. 1. Black Ops Of TCP/IP 2011<br />Dan Kaminsky, Chief Scientist, DKH<br />
  2. 2. Intro<br />I’m Dan Kaminsky<br />I write code<br />Not here to fix authentication<br />Working on that<br />Not here to make DNSSEC scale<br />Working on that too<br />
  3. 3. What I’m here for<br />Return to form<br />As a community, we’ve sort of stopped looking at network security<br />Mapping networks<br />Evading firewalls<br />Subverting design assumptions<br />This is probably the right thing – looking at attacks:<br />Acquire Beachhead<br />SQLi the web front end<br />PDF the client backend<br />Lilypad<br />Use acquired credentials to break everything else<br />Netsec is only so relevant in such an environment<br />
  4. 4. So?<br />We’re going to look into it anyway. Maybe we’ll find something interesting.<br />
  5. 5. BitCoin<br />“BitCoin turns nerd forums into libertarian forums”<br />It’s infected everything else in nerddom, why not this talk?<br />What is it?<br />Attempt at making a digital currency with no central bank<br />A system with economic properties I don’t know anything about<br />An overlay network upon the Internet that people think has certain properties<br />
  6. 6. BitCoin In A Nutshell<br />Built on doing three things<br />TRANSFER: “I Alice, give Bob 2.1 BTC”<br />Alice signs the declaration to Bob’s public key<br />GOSSIP: “Heh everyone! Did you hear that Alice gave Bob 2.1 BTC?”<br />Alice sends that declaration into a peer to peer network that gossips the change<br />APPEND: “Everyone, the official registry of transactions should now include Alice paying Bob, Charlie paying David, and so on.”<br />This is gossiped too<br />Requires solving a problem so hard, it takes the world 10 minutes for someone to do it<br />If it takes less than 10 minutes, it’s not hard enough<br />Crypto lets you make things hard enough<br />Solving the problem gives you 50 BTC (today) to Transfer<br />
  7. 7. The Truth Of Bitcoin<br />…this is not my BitCoin talk <br />Go to for a more detailed deck<br />BitCoin is actually really impressive<br />Entire classes of bugs are just missing<br />The first five times you think you understand it, you don’t<br />BitCoin has fixed almost all flaws that aren’t forced by the design<br />
  8. 8. The Main Flaws (there are a few more)<br />Does not scale<br />Totally not anonymous<br />
  9. 9. Scalability (from BitCoin’s Own Wiki)<br />Bandwidth<br />“Let's assume an average rate of 2000tps, so just VISA…. Shifting 60 gigabytes of data in, say, 60 seconds means an average rate of 1 gigabyte per second, or 8 gigabits per second.”<br />CPU<br /> ”A network node capable of keeping up with VISA would need roughly 50 cores + whatever is used for mining (done by separate machines/GPUs).”<br />Storage<br />“ A 3 terabyte hard disk costs less than $200 today and will be cheaper still in future, so you'd need one such disk for every 21 days of operation (at 1gb per block).”<br />
  10. 10. OK, so you end up with supernodes and normal nodes<br />What are the characteristics of supernodes?<br />They’re banks<br />“Welcome to the new boss, who looks suspiciously like the old boss”<br />I’m not saying banks are bad or anything<br />The “peer to peer” model of BitCoin eventually goes away; as soon as the thing gets big, the entire thing switches to a banking model<br />With all the elements of banking people think BitCoin is immune to, without necessarily the properties people like<br />However, until then…<br />
  11. 11. An Interesting Question<br />Travis Goodspeed: “Heh Dan, any chance BitCoin can be used as a samizdat service?”<br />Samizdat (Russian: самиздат; Russian pronunciation: [səmᵻˈzdat]) was a key form of dissidentactivity across the Soviet bloc in which individuals reproduced censored publications by hand and passed the documents from reader to reader.<br />An old challenge<br />The Internet is usually about sending data, ephemerally<br />Can we use it to store data, indefinitely?<br />Well, if BitCoin is eventually going to require a 3TB HD every 21 days…and is going to need to keep that data forever…<br />
  12. 12. Len.<br />Our community recently lost one of its shining lights<br />If one executes:<br />strings --bytes=20 ~/.bitcoin/blk0001.dat <br />Strings extracts human readable text from any blob of data<br />Usually used to find hardcoded interesting stuff in executables, like default passwords<br />The block database of all transactions ever pushed into BitCoin, run through a filter that extracts all human readable text from the (presently) 450MB file…<br />
  13. 13. BitLen<br />
  14. 14. …and just because it would have made Len laugh<br />
  15. 15. How This Works<br />In BitCoin, Alice gives money to Bob by issuing a sort of challenge<br />“Whoever can sign a message with the public key that hashes to the following bytes, may claim this money.”<br />Well, bytes are bytes<br />Instead of pushing the hash of a public key (20 bytes), we push 20 characters of a testimonial<br />
  16. 16. Side Effect<br />This does cost BTC<br />About 1.0BTC in total<br />There’s minimums to transferring money<br />This does destroy the money<br />The network thinks somewhere, there must be a public key with a hash of “Len was our friend.”<br />I am OK with this.<br />It is the cyber equivalent of pouring one out for your homies.<br />
  17. 17. Can we get higher bandwidth?<br />BitCoin lets you send money to a public key directly, rather than its hash<br />10x increase from 20 bytes to 200 bytes<br />This is not a bug<br />BitCoin allows for extra data in a signature<br />
  18. 18. Signature Expansion<br />BitCoin works with small programs<br />The program from the receiver is: “Put this signature and public key on a stack”<br />The program from the sender is: “Take the signature and public key off the stack and make sure they’re good.”<br />The receiver can put extra stuff on the stack, and yes, it still works just fine<br />This is in fact a bug that is visible purely from being pedantic about the English Language<br />
  19. 19. Illicit Signature Expansion<br />Signatures can’t cover themselves<br />Chicken and Egg<br />So signatures also don’t cover the presence or absence of additional data within themselves<br />Block appending does cover additional data<br />But there is time between when transactions are first created and emitted, and when they’re included in a block append<br />So it turns out anyone can add additional data to an otherwise valid transaction<br />
  20. 20. Limited Usefulness<br />If you’re just some random relay, gossiping the information, you have to compete with the real version<br />Transaction fees limit you to about 1KB of embed per 0.01 BTC (14 cents)<br />This does not apply to you if you generate the signature with extra data, because then you can pay fees<br />This does not apply to you if you calculate the block – you can include as much as you want, up to present 2MB limit, and force everyone else to carry<br />Still better than 20 bytes per 0.01 BTC <br />Yes, Travis, bitcoinfs is totally possible<br />
  21. 21. What about Anonymity? Looking at<br />Transaction Sources: These are all the same ID<br />Transaction Dst’s:One of these IDs is (likely) all of the IDs on the left<br />
  22. 22. Graphs (from Reid/Harrigan)<br />
  23. 23. Problem: Linking pseudonyms isn’t enough<br />Reid/Harrigan get lucky<br />One BitCoin source publishes the IPs it gives money to<br />Another user posted to a forum seeking donations to a linked ID<br />They’re linking pseudonyms within BC, but they’re not linking to IP via out of band processes<br />The published audit trail is noisy and deniable<br />“Naturally, much of this analysis is circumstantial. We cannot say for certain whether or not these flows imply a shared agency in both incidents. There is always the possibility of drawing false inferences.”<br />Is there another source of data?<br />
  24. 24. P2P!<br />There are two sources of transaction information in BitCoin<br />The “blocks” that have been set in stone<br />The “loose transactions” waiting to be merged into blocks<br />These (effectively) always refer to a single identity<br />Both are “gossiped” around the network<br />Big relay race; Alice tells Bob and Charlie, Bob tells David and Eric, Charlie tells Frank and Gary<br />
  25. 25. Subverting the Relay Race<br />An attacker can just connect to every node in the public cloud at once<br />“But that could take 50,000 connections!”<br />Yeah, we can do that in Python now. Kernels don’t suck anymore (well as much).<br />When you’re connected to every node, the first node to inform you of a transaction is the source of it<br />“Done relay it because done done it”<br />More or less true, and absolutely over time<br />(Bonus: You can accelerate your own transactions, by relaying them to everyone yourself)<br />BlitCoin – accelerated probing of BitCoin<br />
  26. 26. Discovering Nodes<br />Just scan the Internet on 8333/TCP<br />Join the IRC channels!<br />#bitcoin, #bitcoin00 to #bitcoin99 on LFNET<br />BitBot<br />Recursively ask every node about every other node it knows about<br />“get_addr” message<br />Can start from hardcoded seeds<br />
  27. 27. Statement From Gavin Andreson, lead dev on BitCoin<br />Bitcoin transactions are more private than credit card or PayPal transactions, but are less private than physical-world cash transactions. Unless you are very careful in the way you use Bitcoin (and you have the technical know-how to use it with other anonymizing technologies like Tor or i2p), you should assume that a persistent, motivated attacker will be able to associate your IP address with yourbitcoin transactions.<br />
  28. 28. What about Tor?<br />Tor indeed obfuscates IPs derived from outbound connections<br />It does nothing if you’re still listening on 8333/tcp and somebody sweeps the net for you<br />Bug filed in BitCoin to shut off listener when operating through Tor<br />
  29. 29. What about unreachable nodes?<br />Most are behind NAT, and only connect via outbound links<br />The active inbound set is only 3000-8000 nodes<br />So, you just create 3000-8000 nodes and you’re half the gossip network<br />Probably only need a few hundred, since each node will collect ~7 peers and you only need one<br />
  30. 30. Just how unreachable are they?<br />Many users are behind wireless routers<br />Routers implement NAT – outbound is easy, inbound is hard<br />“Poor Man’s Firewall”<br />Don’t mock it, it was more effective than real firewalling when it came out<br />Most home routers implement UPNP – Universal Plug And Play<br />UPNP allows nodes inside your network to ask the router to open up ports from the Internet<br />BitCoin now supports doing this by default<br />…but even if it didn’t…<br />
  31. 31. How UPNP is supposed to work<br />Internal hosts send a multicast message out via SSDP (Simple Service Discovery Protocol)<br />1900/UDP M-SEARCH Multicast<br />Internal UPNP nodes – media players, routers, etc – respond w/ endpoints that can be twiddled via web services requests<br />1900/UDP NOTIFY Unicast<br />Responses are sometimes just flooded out, in the absence of M-SEARCH<br />SSDP NOTIFY messages are supposed to contain a randomized URL for UPNP messages to go to<br />
  32. 32. Question<br />UPNP is supposed to only work on internal interfaces<br />“Hello Router, please let the outside world in.”<br />It would be tragic if routers listened to UPNP on external interface as well..<br />“Hello Router, please let the outside world (read: me) in”<br />
  33. 33. Stats (and yes, Scanrand’s coming back)<br />
  34. 34. More Stats<br />Not all listeners on 2869 are fully open<br />Would require fixed UPNP endpoints, instead of the randomized ones Microsoft uses<br />Many verified listeners though<br />Hundreds of thousands to millions<br />Entire countries have standardized NATs that are vulnerable<br />
  35. 35. Your Princess Is In Another Castle<br />Turns out there’s a speaker talking at DEFCON about just this very subject!<br />I’m a little more careful about independent rediscoveries now <br />Daniel Garcia found that there were open UPNP endpoints on the net last year<br />Track 3, Friday, 17:00<br />ArmijnHemelalso did some great work<br /><br />Also noted that sometimes UPNP was exposed to outside world, back in ~2007<br />Still true, unfixed<br />
  36. 36. What about outside the consumer space?<br />Corporate environments<br />Less about BitCoin and UPNP<br />More about web services and ACLs<br />Are there ways past corporate ACLs?<br />Access Control Lists<br />“Access to this IP is constrained to the following range”<br />
  37. 37. Ye Olde Trick<br />IP Spoofing<br />Just pretend to be a source IP vaguely near the target, and you’ll probably pass ACLs<br />“But BCP’s!”<br />Real world, IP spoofing is not hard, as long as you’re not virtualized<br />IP spoofing – the one thing the cloud isn’t very good for<br />
  38. 38. Is IP Spoofing Still Effective?<br />Sure! Let me just pull this DNS trick out of the archive…<br />Generate a query for “$”<br />Send query to all IPs on a network, from various IPs that network might trust<br />x.1.1.1 -> x.1.100.8<br />x.1.100.1 -> x.1.100.8<br />Response will go back to IP you don’t control – but first, the server will try to resolve $ – from you!<br />(Yes, this was another way to exploit that bug.)<br />Granted, this only works for an obscure application like DNS and UDP…certainly nothing built on TCP <br />
  39. 39. Understanding The Limits Of IP Spoofing<br />Most modern protocols run over TCP, a reliable communication protocol<br />1) Alice sends Bob a SYN, containing a random sequence number<br />2) Bob replies with a SYN|ACK, containing both Alice’s sequence number, and his own sequence number<br />3) Alice replies to Bob with an ACK, containing both sequence numbers<br />Data can be sent now<br />Sequence numbers become a sort of “password” for all future traffic<br />If Alice spoofs her IP, she doesn’t see Bob’s sequence number, so she can’t complete step 3<br />
  40. 40. Sequence Numbers Didn’t Used To Be Random<br />Obviously if you can guess a sequence number, you can blindly inject into sessions<br />So, make them random?<br />Problem: Connections are identified by source port, dest port, source IP, and dest IP<br /> -><br />Sometimes, ports are recycled from one connection to the next<br />What if a packet arrives from an old connection? It could look like it belongs in the new one!<br />Fix this by having random sequence numbers, unless id is the same, then we go sequential in time to maximize distance<br />
  41. 41. Example<br />RFC1948<br />F(srcip, dstip, srcport, dstport,secret)+time<br />F==MD5<br />F(,,50000,80,”abcd”)==12341234time==1111seq==12341234+1111==12342345<br />F(,,50000,80,”abcd”)==89991121time==2000seq==89991121+2000==89992121<br />F(,,50000,80,”abcd”)==12341234time==5000seq==12341234+5000==12346234<br />
  42. 42. A Problem: Memory<br />What if somebody just floods us with connection attempts?<br />They don’t have to remember all of our “passwords”<br />They don’t even need to use their own IP addresses<br />We need to remember all of theirs<br />This is a SYN flood, and it’s old as dirt<br />
  43. 43. Solution: SYN Cookies<br />Specified (if not invented) by Dan Bernstein in 1999<br />Finally on by default in Linux in 2008<br />The “password” turns into a challenge<br />“If you can send this back to me, I’ll accept your data”<br />Uses 3/4ths of the sequence number (24 bits) to store the hash of a secret and the four tuple, 5 bits for time, three bits for connection metadata<br />5 bits is exposed to everyone publicly, 3 bits don’t matter, so there’s 24 bits of security<br />
  44. 44. Alas<br />Average of 8 million packets to bypass SYN cookies<br />May be less, due to fudge factors<br />Of course DJB knew this <br />“No matter what function is used, the attacker will succeed in a connection forgery after millions of random ACK packets.”<br />But it’s a different reality than 1999<br />Sending 8M packets is easy now, we has the bandwidth<br />Forged connections have arbitrary sources<br />They get through your ACLs<br />They can contain arbitrary Web Services payloads<br />Definitely REST, maybe SOAP<br />
  45. 45. Are you safe if you disable SYN cookies?<br />Well, not on Linux<br />Linux is RFC 1948 compliant for the lower 24 bits<br />Uses MD4, but still<br />Upper 8 bits?<br />Counter, starting at 0, increments every five minutes<br />Sequential<br />Shared between inbound and outbound connections<br />So, you send a query from your actual IP once or twice to find the offset, and blindly spoof a SYN and a payload-containing ACK<br />After 8M tries, you win<br />
  46. 46. Impact on RST attacks<br />Tony Watson, “Slipping In The Window”<br />Noticed that only one 32 bit “password” was required for Resets (RSTs)<br />Noticed that the “password” only had to be in the “window” of valid data that could sequentially be sent<br />Window describes how many bytes a sender is allowed to transmit without a receiver acknowledging<br />Noticed that the “window” wasn’t even limited to 16 bits; was being expanded 5-8 bits more from “Window Scaling”<br />32-16-8 = 8 bits = 128 packets to kill a session on average<br />New possibility: 32 - 16 – 8 – 8 = 0 bits = 1 packet will always work (assuming full sized window)<br />
  47. 47. Beyond RST: Injection?<br />RST handlers (usually) only check SEQ# (32 bits)<br />ACK handlers however check both SEQ# and ACK# (64 bits)<br />64 – (16 bits from Alice window) – (16 bits from server window) = 32 bits<br />2B packets for 50%<br />32 bits – (5 bits from Alice window scaling) – (5 bits from Bob window scaling) = 22 bits<br />1M packets for 50%<br />Uh oh<br />22 bits – (8 bits from Alice predictable high bits) – (8 bits from Bob predictable high bits) = 6 bits<br />16 packets for 50% <br />
  48. 48. Difficulty: Ports<br />Linux randomizes the source port of a new connection by default<br />You don’t worry about this when you’re doing an ACL bypass, because you control the source port and the dest port<br />You do have to worry about this when injecting into other sessions though<br /> 6 bits (from large windows and high bit disclosure) + 13 bits (port leakage) = 19 bits<br />250K packets for 50% injection even with port randomization<br />Note that sometimes a TCP client sets its source port (DNS, BGP)<br />
  49. 49. Status<br />This is very old code in Linux<br />Predates the check in history of LinusTorvalds<br />They’re figuring out the right fix that won’t cause even more problems<br />There are many potential wrong fixes that are even worse<br />
  50. 50. A Digression<br />RFC1948 is an interesting construction<br />Sequential and ordered with the key<br />Random and unpredictable without<br />Can participate with either:<br />Aprivate component (the secret, mixed in with the 4-tuple), able to generate all possible sequence numbers<br />A public component (a sample sequence number), transmitted over the network, successfully received and retransmitted<br />Public/private cryptography with nothing but a password?<br />Clearly this is impossible<br />Only possible here because of intersection of network security and crypto<br />
  51. 51. To be clear<br />Passwords are a bad idea<br />They’re constantly being lost and forgotten and stolen<br />They are responsible for 50% of compromises<br />They increasingly look like l33tspeak, and this is not helping<br />But, supposing we ignore all that…and assuming that we’re stuck with them…<br />
  52. 52. An Old Challenge [0]<br />How do we use a password to log into a system without that system learning our password?<br />“We hash it!”<br />You’re still giving the server your plaintext password, it just isn’t storing it<br />If salt (random but public prefix) is omitted, attacker can precalculate hash->password database, notice when two users use the same one<br />
  53. 53. An Old Challenge [1]<br /><ul><li>“We challenge you to hash against it properly”</li></ul>“Send me the password hashed against $RANDOM”<br />Digest/NTLM are more advanced versions<br />Requires server to store plaintext password or password equivalent<br />“We require knowledge of password to go from keypair to shared session secret”<br />SPEKE/SRP<br />Requires both client and server to run fairly obscure code – good luck getting either deployed<br />
  54. 54. So…<br />Is it possible (NOT ADVISABLE, OBVIOUSLY THIS IS A BAD IDEA) to build a system where the client only remembers a password, but the server:<br />Stores nothing but a normal public key<br />Deploys nothing but a standard challenge to make sure the client has the matching private key, derived unilaterally from a password?<br />In other words…<br />Can we construct a keypair out of a password?<br />
  55. 55. A Foreboding Question<br />What vulnerability impacted all asymmetric cryptosystems, be they RSA, DSA, or ECC?<br />
  56. 56. …ok…<br />Debian<br />Specifically, a change to the way Debian calculated random numbers in OpenSSL<br />It always calculated the same numbers <br />All asymmetric cryptosystems use entropy as follows:<br />Collect: Grab random bits<br />Permute: Alter those bits until they meet certain requirements. Then emit a public/private keypair<br />Predictable entropy == Predictable keypairs, no matter the algorithm<br />
  57. 57. Uh Oh<br />What if we turned the Debian bug…into a feature?<br />Cryptography is all about constructions<br />We have hash functions, stream ciphers, block ciphers, all of which can be constructed from eachother<br />Note too this is often a bad idea<br />We know how to take a password and construct an everlasting stream of psuedorandom numbers from it<br />“Predictable Entropy”<br />We can even do so in a way that is Hard, in both CPU time and Memory<br />scrypt<br />
  58. 58. A TRULY TERRIFYING AND UGLY AND BAD AND AWESOME IDEA<br />What if you make the output of a password-seeded PRNG, the input to an asymmetric key generator?<br />You’d end up with 2048 bit RSA keypairs, with a “trapdoor” in the form of a password<br />This isn’t theoretical<br />
  59. 59. Normal ssh-keygen<br /># ssh-keygen -f $RANDOM -N "" | grep -i root70:94:3d:4f:c8:c1:1a:a3:88:9a:77:d7:cf:9e:44:2a root<br /># ssh-keygen -f $RANDOM -N "" | grep -i root69:3e:11:4e:a5:5f:09:12:ac:e2:94:21:c4:3b:40:09 root<br /># ssh-keygen -f $RANDOM -N "" | grep -i rootd6:7c:3a:c2:d5:ec:84:88:9d:da:81:2b:6f:9a:c3:9b root<br />
  60. 60. ssh-keygen using Phidelius<br /># LD_PRELOAD=./ PH_PASS="hi grandma" ssh-keygen -f $RANDOM -N ""| grep -i rootad:0d:52:2a:72:be:77:e4:b5:ca:83:bb:4f:49:ce:d2 root<br /># LD_PRELOAD=./ PH_PASS="hi grandma" ssh-keygen -f $RANDOM -N "" | grep -i rootad:0d:52:2a:72:be:77:e4:b5:ca:83:bb:4f:49:ce:d2 root<br />
  61. 61. Enter Phidelius<br />Harry Potter, properly understood, is a story about the epic consequences of losing one’s password.<br />Fidelius is how passwords fail in the HP universe, so…<br />Phidelius hooks /dev/random, /dev/urandom, OpenSSL’s Random functions, and a few other tidbits to provide predictable entropy where it isn’t expected<br />Uses a modified version of scrypt to require ~1 second processing time, and about 256MB of RAM, per crack attempt<br />No GPU fun for you<br />Can be seeded with a file as well<br />
  62. 62. What Phidelius Gives You<br />Generic, multi-application support for predictably generating keypairs from passwords<br />ssh-keygen for SSH keys<br />openssl for certificates<br />Phreebird for DNSSEC keys<br />Allows message signing, message encryption, client certificate authentication, etc. with nothing but a password<br />Solves the “log in with a password, without the system learning your password” problem thoroughly, without you having to store anything anywhere<br />With BitCoin, you could literally give money to the bearer of a word, or a photo.<br />
  63. 63. No pain server side<br />All time/memory hard requirements are limited to the client – the server just implements completely standard crypto<br />
  64. 64. Primary Issues With Phidelius<br />The obvious ones<br />It uses passwords<br />Passwords tend to be low entropy<br />The not obvious ones<br />It’s fragile<br />An explicit scheme to use a password to seed an RSA key, for instance, fixes parameters like “How sure do we need to be that this number is prime?”<br />As an implicit scheme, it depends on assumptions that happen to be encoded into a particular version of a particular key generator<br />It’s hard to salt<br />All users of the common password “password” have the same public/private keypair!<br />
  65. 65. Salting with Phidelius<br />Basic idea is that the private key is computed not just from the password, but from the public key as well<br />The public key is then the carrier of the salt<br />Works for protocols like SSL, fails for protocols like PGP<br />Also a good channel of parameters, like “scrypt doesn’t need to use 256MB of RAM”<br />Can be implemented with no magic code on server, but client needs magic code to embed metadata in public key, and to extract said magic during computation of private<br />
  66. 66. But, to get back to TCP/IP…<br />Lets talk about one last thing we can do with networks.<br />We can find biased network policy, no matter how subtle<br />If biased networks are affecting you, this gives you proof.<br />If you are biasing your network, this is how proof will come.<br />
  67. 67. The Topology<br />Link 1<br /><br />Link 2<br />ISP<br />Client<br />Home Router<br /><br /><br />Link 3<br />
  68. 68. Understanding the Target<br />1) “Magic box” is deployed within ISP network, in front of all links<br />2) Box matches packets to policies, and applies different rules to different packets<br />Can be stateless – “Do I like this packet?”<br />Can be stateful – “This packet is part of a flow. Do I like this flow?”<br />3) Policies can be anything and can do anything<br />Limit maximum bandwidth<br />Increase minimum latency<br />Alter content<br />
  69. 69. The Problem With Subtlety<br />Say is 50ms slower than<br />Is this because of the ISP?<br />Or is this because has better hosting?<br />There are many reasons why might be slower than, granting plausible deniability<br />
  70. 70. Requirement: Normalization<br />Whether the tester is accessing or, the network path should be identical (or at least uncorrelated)<br />We call this normalization<br />That way, any changes would be the result not of path, but of policy (presumably, and ultimately detectably, at the ISP)<br />
  71. 71. Simple Normalization: HTTP<br />Policy: “All flows associated with a HTTP request w/ Host: should be delayed by 50ms”<br />Detector: Configure a single server to accept HTTP requests for,, etc.<br />Then set the client to use it as a proxy server<br />If traffic from the proxy server is faster for some names, than it is for others, you’ve just detected a HTTP-biased policy!<br />
  72. 72. The Problem<br />1) This is very protocol dependent<br />HTTP can be made to do this at low work<br />Other protocols require lots of work to implement/emulate<br />2) The policy can always be specific to IP addresses<br />Sniff DNS to learn which IPs to cover<br />Doesn’t matter how many hundreds of test servers you have, if policies are only applied to genuine or servers<br />
  73. 73. The Solution: N00ter<br />N00ter: The Network Normalization Engine<br />Start with a VPN<br />Traffic is pushed from the Client to a Broker<br />An IP associated with the Broker contacts Servers, who reply to the Broker<br />The Broker sends traffic back to the Client<br />Normally, the ISP sees nothing because traffic between Client and Broker is encrypted<br />Now, instead of encrypting traffic from Broker to Client, send it back to the client<br />Unencrypted<br />Spoofed, as if there was no Broker<br />
  74. 74. SPOOFING ALL THE INTERNET<br />We want the ISP to see our return traffic<br />We’re trying to trigger the response, that would normally be reserved for Bing/Google, for our normalized test server<br />Policy engine can’t tell, because we’re impersonating the real entities<br />Traffic took the same path<br />Traffic came from the same source<br />Why else would we see different Quality of Service?<br />
  75. 75. What About Forward Flow?<br />The policy engine in this scenario doesn’t see traffic from Client to Server<br />That’s encrypted, VPN style<br />What if it just didn’t trigger the filtering policy if it didn’t see both sides of the conversation?<br />
  76. 76. <br />
  77. 77. ENTER ROTO N00TER<br />Normal N00ter: Spoof the server to the client<br />RotoNooter: Spoof the client to the server<br />Sample A: Client talks directly to the real Google<br />ISP sees SYN<br />Sample B: Client talks to real Google by way of Broker, who spoofs the Client. Google replies directly.<br />ISP does not see SYN<br />Both samples have the same path!<br />If they have different performance characteristics, it must be because of the segment of the network that no longer sees client traffic – the ISP!<br />
  78. 78. Catch-22<br />If ISP applies policy to half-flows, N00ter can differentiate the performance of the spoofed half flow of Google, versus the spoofed half flow from Bing<br />If ISP applies policy only to full flows, RotoNooter can differentiate the performance of the full flow to and from the real Google, versus the half flow from the real Google<br />Either way, N00ter Wins<br />This is the endgame. Biased policies might as well be transparent, because they’re not going to be deniable.<br />
  79. 79. Retaining Full Flows<br />Suppose you really want the ISP to see bidirectional traffic<br />Advantage: Triggers all policies. Also, opens up listeners for NATs, that might be inconvenient to get around<br />Disadvantage: If the ISP sees Client->Server traffic, then the Server sees Client->Server traffic<br />It may reply, interfere, complain, etc.<br />
  80. 80. Strategy 1: Bad TCP Checksum<br />Client can tunnel valid traffic to Broker, and push packets with invalid TCP checksums to Server<br />Advantage: Invalid TCP checksums are ignored. Server won’t interfere. NAT almost certainly won’t check sums; Policy engine might not<br />Disadvantage: Policy engine could. NAT might fix sums.<br />Catch-22 with checksums<br />If policy is disabled when checksums are bad, policy can be proven by having Broker provide steady stream of good sums while ISP sees the bad ones<br />
  81. 81. Strategy 2: Low TTL<br />Client can send traffic to Server with TTL that causes packets to be dropped in the middle of the Internet<br />Advantage: Legitimate traffic.<br />Disadvantage: Policy could note low TTL. Router may drop sessions from ICMP Time Exceeded messages. Sort of a router DoS.<br />Another Catch-22: Can probably even figure out which hop the policy engine lives at, by when precisely the flow policy shifts<br />
  82. 82. Strategy 3: The Silent Splice<br />When a TCP stack receives a message not associated with an active socket, it’s supposed to RST<br />But many servers have firewalls that silently ignore unassociated messages<br />For Security!<br />We can have the Client complete a three way handshake with a server, snipe the connection with a RST from the Broker, and then splice a connection between Broker and Server, with what Client (and ISP) think is a connection between Client and Server<br />Packets from Client to Server will be ignored by server<br />Packets from Server to Client are actually spoofed by Broker<br />Policy Engine sees client talking to server. Policy Engine sees server talking to client. You can’t explain that.<br />100% Perfect Bidirectional Flow<br />
  83. 83. A Bit Of Warning<br />If you’re passively monitoring network traffic, be aware that these techniques do mean a malicious client can make it look like they’re having a conversation with anyone<br />Particularly if the server ignores unassociated traffic<br />Keep complete traffic logs!<br />Validate checksums<br />Check TTLs<br />
  84. 84. Where N00ter Is Now<br />Emulates half flows at present<br />Very very fast (written to the old LibPaketto code!)<br />Supports anything that runs over IP<br />If you want to know whether a network prefers XBOX360 traffic to Playstation 3 traffic, this’ll tell you.<br />N00ter is extremely neutral – It Just Works<br />Again, it’s just a VPN that exposes Server->Client traffic in the hopes it’ll get filtered <br />
  85. 85. Summary<br />Networks are neat<br />BitCoin isn’t anonymous<br />UPNP sometimes exposes itself to the outside world<br />ACLs can be bypassed using some interesting sequence number tricks and large number of packets<br />Passwords can be used to seed asymmetric crypto, though they probably shouldn’t<br />Subtle net neutrality hacks are doomed. Transparency or bust.<br />Research hosting thanks to N2K of 3Crowd and Doxx of LyonLabs<br />Anyone want to do some release engineering for me? <br />