1. RDMAP/DDP Security Draft draft-ietf-rddp-security-00.txt Jim Pinkerton, Ellen Deleganes, Allyn Romanow, Bernard Aboba

2. 11/11/200358th IETF - Minneapolis, MN USASecurity - 2 Agenda Overview of the paper –Define Functional Model, including Components Attack paths –Identify threats –Define counter measures What’s new in this version Issues What’s still to be done

3. 11/11/200358th IETF - Minneapolis, MN USASecurity - 3 Approach Security analysis not constrained to any one implementation – examine the scope of implementations The draft is relatively new – minimal review Still sections left to be written

4. 11/11/200358th IETF - Minneapolis, MN USASecurity - 4 Functional Component Model Privileged Resource Manager Privileged Application Non-Privileged Application RNIC Engine firmware Admin Privileged Control Interface Privileged Data Interface Non-Privileged Data Interface Application Control Interface Request Proxy Interface RNIC Interface (RI) Internet

5. 11/11/200358th IETF - Minneapolis, MN USASecurity - 5 Functional Components Privileged application –Assumed to not intentionally attack the system, but may be greedy for resources Non-privileged application –Desire to provide benefits of RDMAP/DDP without introducing additional security risk –Not trusted, granted only a subset of the capabilities granted to a privileged application Resource Manager –Controls allocation of “scarce” resources –Implements policies to detect and prevent DoS attacks

6. 11/11/200358th IETF - Minneapolis, MN USASecurity - 6 An RI in More Detail RI Send Queue Receive Queue Completion Queue Async Event Queue Resources: Page Translation Table, STag Table, Connection Context Memory Host Network RDMA Read Request Queue

7. 11/11/200358th IETF - Minneapolis, MN USASecurity - 7 Threats and Attack Classes Spoofing –Connection hijacking –Unauthorized STag use Tampering –Unauthorized modification of remote buffers Information Disclosure –Unauthorized read access to remote buffers Denial of Service –Consumption of “precious” resources Elevation of Privilege –Loading FW onto the RNIC

8. 11/11/200358th IETF - Minneapolis, MN USASecurity - 8 Tampering Remote Peer attempts to tamper with buffers on a Local Peer –Attempt to write outside of the buffer bounds –Modify buffer contents after indicating buffer contents are ready for use –Using multiple STags to access the same buffer

9. 11/11/200358th IETF - Minneapolis, MN USASecurity - 9 Information Disclosure Remote peer attempts to improperly read information in buffers on a Local Peer –Use of RDMA Read to access stale data –Accessing buffer after transfer is over –Accessing unintended data through use of a valid STag –Using multiple STags to access the same buffer

10. 11/11/200358th IETF - Minneapolis, MN USASecurity - 10 Denial of Service Resource consumption –Receive data buffers when pool is shared –Completion Queue entries –RDMA Read Request Queue –Untagged receive buffers Remote invalidation of an STag across multiple connections

11. 11/11/200358th IETF - Minneapolis, MN USASecurity - 11 Tools for Counter Measures Protection Domain End-to-end authentication Limiting scope of: –STag Number of connections, amount of buffer advertised, time the buffer is advertised, randomly use the namespace –Buffer access rights Write-only, Read-only, Write/Read –Completion Queue One or more connections –Error generation/propagation Resource manager

12. 11/11/200358th IETF - Minneapolis, MN USASecurity - 12 Counter Measures Protection Domain (PD) –Data buffers associated with an STag can be accessed only through connections in the same PD –Limit CQ access to connections in the same PD Limit STag scope –Limit SdTag usage to a single connection, or connections in the same PD –Limit the time the STag is valid by invalidating STag when data transfer is over –Limit the memory the STag can access by setting base and bounds to just the intended buffers

13. 11/11/200358th IETF - Minneapolis, MN USASecurity - 13 Counter Measures Set appropriate buffer access rights –Enable only the rights needed (read only, write only or read/write) –Local peer only access for buffers that do not require remote access Limit scope of error propagation/generation –Limit generation of error events to prevent event queue overflow Resource Manager –Put allocation of scarce resource under control of a Resource Manager

14. 11/11/200358th IETF - Minneapolis, MN USASecurity - 14 Attacks & Countermeasures Threat/Attack ClassPD E2E auth Limit scope Resource Manager STagBuffer Access CQ Error Spoofing Connection hijacking Unauthorized STag use Tampering Unauthorized data modification Information Disclosure Unauthorized data access Denial of Service Consumption of resources Elevation of Privilege Load FW on RNIC (Or not allow this feature)

15. 11/11/200358th IETF - Minneapolis, MN USASecurity - 15 What’s New “Partial Trust” instead of “Trust” Architecture model –Clarifications to existing components –RNIC data transfer initialization –RNIC data transfer (SQ, RQ) –RNIC Asynch Event Queue

16. 11/11/200358th IETF - Minneapolis, MN USASecurity - 16 What’s New (cont) Clarifications for implementation flexibility –Multiple PDs in a single app Consideration of additional attacks –Controlling Page Trans. Table mapping to a buffer –Shared STag – remote invalidate –Shared STag – remote peer consumes too many buffers

17. 11/11/200358th IETF - Minneapolis, MN USASecurity - 17 Combinations of Trust Local Resource Sharing Local Trust? Remote Trust? NameExample Application NNNNS- NT RDDP/DDP client/server Networking NNYNS- RT Authenticated Remote Peer NYNKernel client NYYSimilar to S-T YNNS-NTTypical Networking YNY?? YYNS-LTStorage target YYYS-TMPI

18. 11/11/200358th IETF - Minneapolis, MN USASecurity - 18 Dimensions of Partial Trust Primarily a tool to educate the non-IETF RDMA community on the risks of traditional RDMA (local and remote trust) Within IETF the assumption is generally no remote trust, no local trust –Thus dimensions of trust could be simplified to just a local resource sharing issue i.e. Are local resources shared between streams? Should we remove dimensions of trust?

19. 11/11/200358th IETF - Minneapolis, MN USASecurity - 19 Outstanding Issues Issues highlighted in the document –IPsec section –Summary table at the end –Clarify using PD as counter measure vs. PD resource limitation –Describe security issue with sharing resources for untagged receives before diving into evaluation of shared buffer pool vs. shared receive queue Still open since Vienna –Resolve shared RQ security issues –Better document multiple client to single server with different trust model per client

20. 11/11/200358th IETF - Minneapolis, MN USASecurity - 20 Outstanding Issues Other emails –Non-privileged Application being able to disable/enable an STag mapping without using the Privileged Resource Manager