If you’ve been holidaying in splendid isolation, an anti-spam group and a Dutch hosting outfit had a fallout, resulting in some cyber-floods, catching hosting provider CloudFlare in the middle.
The mode of the attack was such that it used two vulnerabilities in systems attached to the internet:
- Open DNS Resolvers – “directory” servers which were poorly managed, and would answer any query directed to it, regardless of it’s origin.
- Ordinarily, a properly configured DNS resolver will only answer queries for it’s defined subscriber base.
- The ability of a system to send traffic to the internet with an IP address other than the one configured.
- Normally, an application will use which ever address is configured on the interface, but it is possible to send with another address – commonly used for testing, research or debugging.
The Open Resolver issue has already been well documented with respect to this particular attack.
However, there’s not been that much noise about spoofed source addresses, and how ISPs could apply a thing called BCP 38 to combat this.
For the attack to work properly, what was needed was an army of “zombie” computers, compromised, and under the control of miscreants, which were able to send traffic onto the Internet with a source address other than it’s own, and the Open Resolvers.
Packets get sent from the compromised “zombie army” to the open resolvers, but not with the real source IP addresses, instead using the source address of the victim(s).
The responses therefore don’t return to the zombies, but all to the victim addresses.
It’s like sending letters with someone else’s address as a reply address. You don’t care that you don’t get the reply, you want the reply to go to the victim.
Filtering according to BCP 38 would stop the “spoofing” – the ability to use a source IP address other than one belonging to the network the computer is actually attached to. BCP 38 indicates the application of IP address filters or a check that an appropriate “reverse path” exists, which only admits traffic from expected source IP addresses.
BCP stands for “Best Current Practice” – so if it’s “Best” and “Current” why are enough ISPs not doing it to allow for an attack as big as this one?
The belief seems to be that applying BCP 38 is “hard” (or potentially too expensive based on actual benefit) for ISPs to do. It certainly might be hard to apply BCP 38 filters in some places, especially as you get closer to the “centre” of the Internet – the lists would be very big, and possibly a challenge to maintain, even with the necessary automation.
However, if that’s where people are looking to apply BCP 38 – at the point where ISPs interconnect, or where ISPs attach multi-homed customers – then they are almost certainly looking in the wrong place. If you filter there, if you’ve any attack traffic from customers in your network, you’ve already carried it across your network. If you’ve got Open Resolvers in your network, you’ve already delivered the attack traffic to the intermediate point in the attack.
The place where BCP 38 type filtering is best implemented is close to the downstream customer edge – in the “stub” networks – such as access networks, hosting networks, etc. This is because the network operator should know exactly which source IP addresses it should be expecting at that level in the network – it doesn’t need to be as granular as per-DSL customer or per-hosting customer, but at least don’t allow traffic to pass from “off net” source addresses.
I actually implement BCP 38 myself on my home DSL router. It’s configured so it will only forward packets to the Internet from the addresses which are downstream of the router. I suspect my own ISP does the “right thing”, and I know that I’ve got servers elsewhere in the world where the hosting company does apply BCP 38, but it can’t be universal. We know that from the “success” of the recent attack.
Right now, the situation is that many networks don’t seem to implement BCP 38. But if enough networks started to implement BCP 38 filtering, the ones who didn’t would be in the minority, and this would allow peer pressure to be brought to bear on them to “do the right thing”.
Sure, it may be a case of the good guys closing one door, only for the bad guys to open another, but any step which increases the difficulty for the bad guys can’t be a bad thing, right?
We should have a discussion on this at UKNOF 25 next week, and I dare say at many other upcoming Internet Operations and Security forums.