The Abandoned Side of the Internet: Hijacking Internet Resources When Domain Names Expire

The vulnerability of the Internet has been demonstrated by prominent IP prefix hijacking events. Major outages such as the China Telecom incident in 2010 stimulate speculations about malicious intentions behind such anomalies. Surprisingly, almost all discussions in the current literature assume that hijacking incidents are enabled by the lack of security mechanisms in the inter-domain routing protocol BGP. In this paper, we discuss an attacker model that accounts for the hijacking of network ownership information stored in Regional Internet Registry (RIR) databases. We show that such threats emerge from abandoned Internet resources (e.g., IP address blocks, AS numbers). When DNS names expire, attackers gain the opportunity to take resource ownership by re-registering domain names that are referenced by corresponding RIR database objects. We argue that this kind of attack is more attractive than conventional hijacking, since the attacker can act in full anonymity on behalf of a victim. Despite corresponding incidents have been observed in the past, current detection techniques are not qualified to deal with these attacks. We show that they are feasible with very little effort, and analyze the risk potential of abandoned Internet resources for the European service region: our findings reveal that currently 73 /24 IP prefixes and 7 ASes are vulnerable to be stealthily abused. We discuss countermeasures and outline research directions towards preventive solutions.Comment: Final version for TMA 201

Decentralized trust in the inter-domain routing infrastructure

Inter-domain routing security is of critical importance to the Internet since it prevents unwanted traffic redirections. The current system is based on a Public Key Infrastructure (PKI), a centralized repository of digital certificates. However, the inherent centralization of such design creates tensions between its participants and hinders its deployment. In addition, some technical drawbacks of PKIs delay widespread adoption. In this paper we present IPchain, a blockchain to store the allocations and delegations of IP addresses. IPchain leverages blockchains' properties to decentralize trust among its participants, with the final goal of providing flexible trust models that adapt better to the ever-changing geopolitical landscape. Moreover, we argue that Proof of Stake is a suitable consensus algorithm for IPchain due to the unique incentive structure of this use-case, and that blockchains offer relevant technical advantages when compared to existing systems, such as simplified management. In order to show its feasibility and suitability, we have implemented and evaluated IPchain's performance and scalability storing around 350k IP prefixes in a 2.5 GB chain.Peer ReviewedPostprint (published version

MaxLength considered harmful to the RPKI

User convenience and strong security are often at odds, and most security applications need to find some sort of balance between these two (often opposing) goals. The Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI), a security infrastructure built on top of interdomain routing, is not immune to this issue. The RPKI uses the maxLength attribute to reduce the amount of information that must be explicitly recorded in its cryptographic objects. MaxLength also allows operators to easily reconfigure their networks without modifying their RPKI objects. Our network measurements, however, suggest that the maxLength attribute strikes the wrong balance between security and user convenience. We therefore believe that operators should avoid using maxLength. We give operational recommendations and develop software that allow operators to reap many of the benefits of maxLength without its security costs.https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/1015.pdfhttps://eprint.iacr.org/2016/1015.pdfPublished versio

RiPKI: The Tragic Story of RPKI Deployment in the Web Ecosystem

Previous arXiv version of this paper has been published under the title "When BGP Security Meets Content Deployment: Measuring and Analysing RPKI-Protection of Websites", Proc. of Fourteenth ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks (HotNets), New York:ACM, 2015Previous arXiv version of this paper has been published under the title "When BGP Security Meets Content Deployment: Measuring and Analysing RPKI-Protection of Websites", Proc. of Fourteenth ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks (HotNets), New York:ACM, 2015Web content delivery is one of the most important services on the Internet. Access to websites is typically secured via TLS. However, this security model does not account for prefix hijacking on the network layer, which may lead to traffic blackholing or transparent interception. Thus, to achieve comprehensive security and service availability, additional protective mechanisms are necessary such as the RPKI, a recently deployed Resource Public Key Infrastructure to prevent hijacking of traffic by networks. This paper argues two positions. First, that modern web hosting practices make route protection challenging due to the propensity to spread servers across many different networks, often with unpredictable client redirection strategies, and, second, that we need a better understanding why protection mechanisms are not deployed. To initiate this, we empirically explore the relationship between web hosting infrastructure and RPKI deployment. Perversely, we find that less popular websites are more likely to be secured than the prominent sites. Worryingly, we find many large-scale CDNs do not support RPKI, thus making their customers vulnerable. This leads us to explore business reasons why operators are hesitant to deploy RPKI, which may help to guide future research on improving Internet security

Decentralised Internet infrastructure: Securing inter-domain routing (DEMO)

The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) is the inter-domain routing protocol that glues the Internet. BGP does not incorporate security and instead, it relies on careful configuration and manual filtering to offer some protection. As a consequence, the current inter-domain routing infrastructure is partially vulnerable to prefix and path hijacks as well as in misconfigurations that results in route leaks. There are many instances of these vulnerabilities being exploited by malicious actors on the Internet, resulting in disruption of services. To address this issue the IETF has designed RPKI, a centralised trust architecture that relies on Public Key Infrastructure. RPKI has slow adoption and its centralised nature is problematic: network administrators are required to trust CAs and do not have the ultimate control of their own critical Internet resources (e.g,. IP blocks, AS Numbers). In this context, we have built the Decentralised Internet Infrastructure (DII), a distributed ledger to securely store inter-domain routing information. The main advantages of DII are (i) it offers flexible trust models where the Internet community can define the rules of a consensus algorithm that properly reflects the power balance of its members and, (ii) offers protection against vulnerabilities (path hijack and route leaks) that goes well beyond what RPKI offers. We have deployed the prototype on the wild in a worldwide testbed including 7 ASes, we will use the testbed to demonstrate in a realistic scenario how allocation and delegation of Internet resources in DII work, and how this protects ASes against artificially produced path and prefix hijack as well as a route leak.This work was partially supported by the Spanish MINECO under contract TEC2017-90034-C2-1-R (ALLIANCE) and the Catalan Institution for Research and Advanced Studies (ICREA).Peer ReviewedPostprint (author's final draft

RPKI vs ROVER: Comparing the Risks of BGP Security Solutions

Route Origin Verification (ROVER), a mechanism for securing interdomain routing with BGP, is a proposed alternative to the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI). While the RPKI requires the design and deployment of a completely new security infrastructure, ROVER leverages existing reverse DNS and DNSSEC deployments. Both ROVER and RPKI are based on a hierarchy of authorities that are trusted to provide information about the routing system. It has been argued recently that misconfigurations or compromises of the RPKI\u27s trusted authorities can present new risks to the routing system. Meanwhile, the advocates of ROVER claim that it provides a fail-safe approach, where the Internet will continue to work as it is even when ROVER fails. This poster therefore compares the impact of ROVER failures to those of the RPKI

Design and implementation of InBlock, a distributed IP address registration system

The current mechanism to secure Border Gateway Protocol relies on the resource public key infrastructure (RPKI) for route origin authorization. The RPKI implements a hierarchical model that intrinsically makes lower layers in the hierarchy susceptible to errors and abuses from entities placed in higher layers. In this article, we present InBlock, a distributed autonomous organization that provides decentralized management of IP addresses based on blockchain, embedding an alternative trust model to the hierarchical one currently implemented by the RPKI. By leveraging on blockchain technology, InBlock requires consensus among the involved parties to change existent prefix allocation information. InBlock also fulfills the same objectives as the current IP address allocation system, i.e., uniqueness, fairness, conservation, aggregation, registration, and minimized overhead. InBlock is implemented as a set of blockchain smart contracts in Ethereum, performing all the functions needed for the management of a global pool of addresses without human intervention. Any entity may request an allocation of addresses to the InBlock registry by solely performing a (crypto) currency transfer to the InBlock. We describe our InBlock implementation and we perform several experiments to show that it enables fast address registering and incurs in very low management costs.Publicad