1. Vulnerabilities of Passive Internet Threat Monitors Yoichi Shinoda Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology Ko Ikai National Police Agency, Japan Motomu Itoh JPCERT/CC

2. Passive Internet Threat Monitors Passive Internet monitoring measures and characterizes interesting network activity – e.g. worms, distributed DoS attacks, etc. The operation of Internet threat monitors assumes that sensors are observing only non-biased background traffic.

3. Passive Internet Threat Monitors

4. Characterizing Threat Monitors Report Types – Port Table Captured events over a range of ports. – Time-Series Graph Summarizing and visualizing events.

5. The Problem The addresses of real network monitor sensors can be identified. – Sensors may be fed with arbitrary packets. – Sensors may become DoS victims. – Sensors may be evaded. Sensor attackers or evaders do not require a complete list of sensor addresses.

6. Detection Methods The Basic Cycle

7. Feedback Properties Accumulation Window: The duration between two consecutive counter resets. Time Resolution: The minimum unit of time that can be observed in a feedback. Feedback Delay: The time between a capture event and next feedback update. Retention Time: The maximum duration that an event is held in the feedback.

8. Marking Algorithms Address-Encoded-Port Marking – An address is marked with a marker that has its destination port number derived from encoding part of the address bits.

9. Marking Algorithms Time Series Marking – Each sub-block is marked within the time resolution window of the feedback so that results from marking can be reverse back to the corresponding sub-block.

10. Marking Algorithms Uniform Intensity Marking (1/2) – All addresses are marked with the same intensity. – Address blocks are divided into smaller sub- blocks. – Each sub-block is marked using time-series marking, each address with a single marker.

11. Marking Algorithms Uniform Intensity Marking (2/2) – Example Suppose we have a /16 address block which contains several sensors. The original block is divided into 16 /20 sub-blocks. One sensor in sub-block #3 One sensor in sub-block #7 Two sensors in sub-block #10

12. Marking Algorithms Radix-Intensity Marking (1/2) – Selected address bits are translated into marking intensity. e.g. the number of packets for each address. – For example, if we are marking 16 /20 sub-blocks Mark the first /21 block within a sub-block with 2 markers and the second /21 block with 3 markers.

13. Marking Algorithms Radix-Intensity Marking (2/2) – Radix-intensity marking was able to derive information about the positions of these sensors within each sub-block. – Uniform-intensity marking would have derived only the number of sensors in each sub-block. – Ambiguity for feedback intensity value of 6 (?). One sensor in the first half One sensor in the second half Two sensors, one in the fist half and the other in the second half

14. Designing a Marking Activity Target Range – Decide on the range of addresses that we want to mark. Marking Algorithm – Determined by the properties of the feedback.  Table form  Address-Encoded-Port marking  Graph form  Time-Series marking Marker Design – Marker type: proto, source and destination port. – Source address. – Payload.

15. Designing a Marking Activity Intensity – Number of markers sent to a single address. Bandwidth – Limiting factor. Velocity – The speed with which marker packets can be generated. Address Range Subdivision – Calculated from the velocity and the intensity. Marking Order – Scramble the order in which we send the markers.

16. Designing a Marking Activity Bandwidth vs. Time for various sized blocks and intensities for 64-byte Markers.

17. Protecting Threat Monitors Provide Less Information – Decrease the amount of information the system is giving out. E.g. longer accumulation window, less sensitivity, etc. Throttle the Information – Apply some standard remediation techniques that are being used to provide privacy in data mining.

18. Protecting Threat Monitors Introducing Explicit Noise – Introduce explicit variance into level sensitivity into sensors. – Inter-monitor collaboration. Disturbing Mark-Examine-Update Cycle – Degree of mobility required to disturb the cycle and how it affects monitor results must be studied.

19. Protecting Threat Monitors Marking Detection – Events generated by marking activities are basically local and transient by nature. Sensor Scale and Placement – Increasing number of sensors that are carefully placed provide a certain level of protection. Small Cautions – Prevent ICMP-based fingerprinting – introduce TTL mangling

20. A Simple Example