Incrementally Deployable Security for Interdomain Routing (TTA-4, Type-I) Jennifer Rexford, Princeton University Joan Feigenbaum, Yale University January.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
My Experience Writing an NSF NeTS FIND Proposal Nick Feamster Georgia Tech.
Advertisements

Martin Suchara in collaboration with I. Avramopoulos and J. Rexford How Small Groups Can Secure Interdomain Routing.
Fundamentals of Computer Networks ECE 478/578 Lecture #18: Policy-Based Routing Instructor: Loukas Lazos Dept of Electrical and Computer Engineering University.
Lecture 6 Overlay Networks CPE 401/601 Computer Network Systems slides are modified from Jennifer Rexford.
Putting BGP on the Right Path: A Case for Next-Hop Routing Michael Schapira (Yale University and UC Berkeley) Joint work with Yaping Zhu and Jennifer Rexford.
1 In VINI Veritas: Realistic and Controlled Network Experimentation Jennifer Rexford with Andy Bavier, Nick Feamster, Mark Huang, and Larry Peterson
Traffic Engineering With Traditional IP Routing Protocols
Interdomain Routing Security COS 461: Computer Networks Michael Schapira.
1 GENI: Global Environment for Network Innovations Jennifer Rexford On behalf of Allison Mankin (NSF)
A Routing Control Platform for Managing IP Networks Jennifer Rexford Computer Science Department Princeton University
New Routing Architectures Jennifer Rexford Advanced Computer Networks Tuesdays/Thursdays 1:30pm-2:50pm.
Stable Internet Routing Without Global Coordination Jennifer Rexford Princeton University Joint work with Lixin Gao (UMass-Amherst)
Incrementally Deployable Security for Interdomain Routing (TTA-4, Type-I) Jennifer Rexford, Princeton University Joan Feigenbaum, Yale University July.
Dynamics of Hot-Potato Routing in IP Networks Renata Teixeira (UC San Diego) with Aman Shaikh (AT&T), Tim Griffin(Intel),
Incrementally Deployable Security for Interdomain Routing (TTA-4, Type-I) Jennifer Rexford, Princeton University Joan Feigenbaum, Yale University August,
Learning-Based Anomaly Detection in BGP Updates Jian Zhang Jennifer Rexford Joan Feigenbaum.
Internet Routing (COS 598A) Today: Interdomain Traffic Engineering Jennifer Rexford Tuesdays/Thursdays.
Inherently Safe Backup Routing with BGP Lixin Gao (U. Mass Amherst) Timothy Griffin (AT&T Research) Jennifer Rexford (AT&T Research)
Interdomain Routing Security Jennifer Rexford Advanced Computer Networks Tuesdays/Thursdays.
Internet In A Slice Andy Bavier CS461 Lecture.
A Routing Control Platform for Managing IP Networks Jennifer Rexford Princeton University
Internet Routing (COS 598A) Today: Telling Routers What to Do Jennifer Rexford Tuesdays/Thursdays.
Economic Incentives in Internet Routing Jennifer Rexford Princeton University
Network Monitoring for Internet Traffic Engineering Jennifer Rexford AT&T Labs – Research Florham Park, NJ 07932
A Routing Control Platform for Managing IP Networks Jennifer Rexford Princeton University
Wen Xu and Jennifer Rexford Princeton University MIRO : Multi-path Interdomain ROuting.
A Routing Control Platform for Managing IP Networks Jennifer Rexford Princeton University
The Future of the Internet Jennifer Rexford ’91 Computer Science Department Princeton University
Building a Strong Foundation for a Future Internet Jennifer Rexford ’91 Computer Science Department (and Electrical Engineering and the Center for IT Policy)
Scaling IXPs Scalable Infrastructure Workshop. Objectives  To explain scaling options within the IXP  To introduce the Internet Routing Registry at.
Network Sensitivity to Hot-Potato Disruptions Renata Teixeira (UC San Diego) with Aman Shaikh (AT&T), Tim Griffin(Intel),
Working Group #4: Network Security – Best Practices March 6, 2013 Presenters: Rod Rasmussen, Internet Identity Tony Tauber, Comcast WG #4.
Impact of Prefix Hijacking on Payments of Providers Pradeep Bangera and Sergey Gorinsky Institute IMDEA Networks, Madrid, Spain Developing the Science.
9/15/2015CS622 - MIRO Presentation1 Wen Xu and Jennifer Rexford Department of Computer Science Princeton University Chuck Short CS622 Dr. C. Edward Chow.
1 Controlling IP Spoofing via Inter-Domain Packet Filters Zhenhai Duan Department of Computer Science Florida State University.
CS 3700 Networks and Distributed Systems Inter Domain Routing (It’s all about the Money) Revised 8/20/15.
Happy Network Administrators  Happy Packets  Happy Users WIRED Position Statement Aman Shaikh AT&T Labs – Research October 16,
Working Group 6: Secure BGP Deployment December 16, 2011 Andy Ogielski, Renesys Jennifer Rexford, Princeton U. WG 6 Co-Chairs.
How Secure are Secure Inter- Domain Routing Protocols? SIGCOMM 2010 Presenter: kcir.
Jennifer Rexford Fall 2014 (TTh 3:00-4:20 in CS 105) COS 561: Advanced Computer Networks BGP.
Staff AAA. Radius is not an ISP AAA Option RADIUS TACACS+ Kerberos.
Interdomain Routing Security. How Secure are BGP Security Protocols? Some strange assumptions? – Focused on attracting traffic from as many Ases as possible.
A Firewall for Routers: Protecting Against Routing Misbehavior1 June 26, A Firewall for Routers: Protecting Against Routing Misbehavior Jia Wang.
SDX: A Software-Defined Internet eXchange Jennifer Rexford Princeton University
A Light-Weight Distributed Scheme for Detecting IP Prefix Hijacks in Real-Time Lusheng Ji†, Joint work with Changxi Zheng‡, Dan Pei†, Jia Wang†, Paul Francis‡
Detecting Selective Dropping Attacks in BGP Mooi Chuah Kun Huang November 2006.
CS 4396 Computer Networks Lab BGP. Inter-AS routing in the Internet: (BGP)
Evolving Toward a Self-Managing Network Jennifer Rexford Princeton University
Evolving Toward a Self-Managing Network Jennifer Rexford Princeton University
1 Agenda for Today’s Lecture The rationale for BGP’s design –What is interdomain routing and why do we need it? –Why does BGP look the way it does? How.
1 Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) and BGP Security Jeff Gribschaw Sai Thwin ECE 4112 Final Project April 28, 2005.
Bringing External Connectivity and Experimenters to GENI Nick Feamster Georgia Tech.
Michael Schapira, Princeton University Fall 2010 (TTh 1:30-2:50 in COS 302) COS 561: Advanced Computer Networks
Inter-domain Routing Outline Border Gateway Protocol.
Incrementally Deployable Security for Interdomain Routing (TTA-4, Type-I) Elliott Karpilovsky, Princeton University on behalf of Jennifer Rexford, Princeton.
Separating Routing From Routers Jennifer Rexford Princeton University
One Hop for RPKI, One Giant Leap for BGP Security Yossi Gilad (Hebrew University) Joint work with Avichai Cohen (Hebrew University), Amir Herzberg (Bar.
CS 3700 Networks and Distributed Systems
CS 3700 Networks and Distributed Systems
COS 561: Advanced Computer Networks
COS 561: Advanced Computer Networks
Can Economic Incentives Make the ‘Net Work?
COS 561: Advanced Computer Networks
COS 561: Advanced Computer Networks
COS 561: Advanced Computer Networks
COS 561: Advanced Computer Networks
BGP Security Jennifer Rexford Fall 2018 (TTh 1:30-2:50 in Friend 006)
Fixing the Internet: Think Locally, Impact Globally
BGP Instability Jennifer Rexford
Presentation transcript:

Incrementally Deployable Security for Interdomain Routing (TTA-4, Type-I) Jennifer Rexford, Princeton University Joan Feigenbaum, Yale University January 23, 2006

2 Problem: Insecure Internet Infrastructure Border Gateway Protocol is important –BGP is the glue that holds the Internet together BGP is extremely vulnerable –Easy to inject false information –Easy to trigger routing instability Vulnerabilities are being exploited –Configuration errors and malicious attacks –Route hijacking, blackholes, denial-of-service, … Changing to a secure protocol is hard –Can’t have a flag day to reboot the Internet

3 Example: Route Hijacking /16 Consequences for the data traffic –Discarded: denial of service –Snooped: violating the user’s privacy –Redirected: identity theft, propagating false info, etc.

4 Solution: Incremental Deployability Backwards compatibility –Work with existing routers and protocols Incentive compatibility –Offer significant benefits, even to the first adopter AS 3 AS 2 AS 1 BGP Inter-AS Protocol RCP Routing Control Platform tells routers how to forward traffic Use BGP to communicate with the legacy routers Use RCP to simplify management and enable new servicesUse RCP to detect (and avoid) suspicious routes Other ASes can deploy an RCP independently ASes with RCPs can cooperate to detect suspicious routes ASes can upgrade to secure interdomain routing protocol … all while still using BGP to control the legacy routers Distributed detection

5 Problem #1: BGP Anomaly Detection Avoid using suspicious/unstable routes –Data-streaming algorithms for anomaly detection –Single AS, and then distributed collection of ASes –Evaluation on data from AT&T and RouteViews AS 3 AS 2 AS 1 RCP share diagnostic information

6 Anomaly Detection: Accomplishments Wavelet analysis to detect BGP anomalies –Detect anomalies in the temporal dynamics of updates –Anomalous patterns for a prefix & across prefixes –Highlights a small # of deviations from the norm Distributed reputation system for ASes –ASes cooperate based on trust relationships –Similar to “friends” and “friends of friends” system –Distributed validation of BGP routing information Algorithm that prevents prefix highjacking –Detect AS that does not normally originate a prefix –Distrust new information until you can validate it –Select other “normal” routes instead for period of time

7 Problem #2: Networks for RCP Deployment Creating a Virtual Network Infrastructure (VINI) –National Lambda Rail (NLR) Servers shipping to six sites in the next few months Connections to layer-2 network and BGP peering with routers –Abilene Internet2 backbone PlanetLab servers in eleven sites Gbps share of each link and upstream to exchange points VINI software already running on the Abilene nodes –Routing and forwarding: XORP & Click running on servers –Connecting to real users: OpenVPN, NAT, and PlanetLab Draft paper in preparation for submission in February 2006

8 Problem #3: Routing Policy Management Centralize policy management in the RCP –Policies for filtering, selecting, & exporting routes –Build on a trust-management system –Accomplishments: survey of ISP routing policies Biz relationships, traffic engineering, security, scalability AS 1 RCP Filter: discard routes for small subnets; discard suspicious routes Select: prefer routes learned from customers; prefer closer egress points; prefer stable routes Export: do not export peer-learned routes to other peers; do not export infrastructure addresses

9 Project Milestones: Three-Year Timeline RCP prototype, and API to data- analysis engine Offline algorithms and upper bounds Identify today’s policies and select notation RCP with API to trust-management system Online analysis algorithm to detect anomalies Integrate policy language in trust management Deployment of RCP in operational networks Deploy online algorithm; create distributed Deploy in trust management system RCP Prototype Anomaly Detection Routing Policy Evaluate incentive compatibility Quantify gains of a partial deployment Investigate new secure inter-AS protocols Secure Routing Focus thus far

10 Anticipated Deliverables and Tech Transfer Publicly available software –RCP prototype built on XORP and/or Quagga –Anomaly detection algorithms –Routing-policy management Deployment platform and technology demonstration –RCP deployment and evaluation in AT&T –Integration of RCP in VINI on NLR and Abilene –Supported VINI testbed in NLR and Abilene Analysis –Fundamental limits of anomaly detection –Security benefits of incremental deployment –Incentives for groups of ASes to cooperate Discussions with vendors (Cisco, Lucent)

11 Publication Activity: Past Six Months Anomaly detection –“Learning-based anomaly detection in BGP updates" (SIGCOMM MineNet Workshop, Aug 05) –“A distributed reputation approach to cooperative Internet routing protection” (Workshop on Secure Network Protocols, Nov 05) –"Pretty Good BGP: Protecting BGP by cautiously selecting routes" (in submission) Routing policies –“BGP policies in ISP networks” (IEEE Network, Nov/Dec 05) Incentive analysis –“Incentive-compatible interdomain routing” (in submission)

12 Publication Activity: Next Six Months In active preparation –“In VINI veritas: Realistic and controlled experimentation with new network architectures” (Feb 06) –“Using Forgetful Routing to control BGP-Table size” (Feb 06) –“Multi-path interdomain routing for flexible policy control” (Feb 06) –“A survey of BGP security issues and solutions” (Mar/Apr 06) Plans for the mid-to-late spring –Extended version of the wavelet-analysis paper –Evaluation of the RCP prototype running in VINI –API to streaming algorithms for anomaly detection –Active probing to test the validity of interdomain paths

13 Potential Impact: Secure Interdomain Routing Breaking the “flag day” stalemate –Viable approach to incremental deployment –Backwards compatible with the legacy routers –Incentive compatible with goals of each AS Immediate benefits to participating ASes –Avoiding anomalous and suspicious routes –Secure routing with participating neighbors Tipping point leads to ubiquitous deployment –Increasing incentives for ASes to participate –Ultimately, full deployment of secure protocol Insights for other protocols (such as DNSSEC)

14 DESCRIPTION / OBJECTIVES / METHODS Routing Control Platform (RCP) Selects routes on behalf of routers Possible today on high-end PC Incrementally-deployable security Speak BGP to the legacy routers Detect and avoid suspicious routes Update RCPs to use secure protocol DHS/Cyber Security IMPACT Internet routing system is vulnerable Core communication infrastructure Very vulnerable to cyber attacks Hard to have “flag day” for upgrades Phased deployment of secure routing Network manager deploys locally Participating domains detect attacks Neighbor domains upgrade protocol Cyber Security R&D Incrementally Deployable Security for Interdomain Routing Network A BGP RCP Network B Secure routing protocol BUDGET & SCHEDULE TASK FY05FY06FY07 RCP prototype Anomaly detection Policy manager Secure routing Total cost