On Host Identity Protocol

Transcription

1 On Host Identity Protocol Miika Komu Data Communications Software Group Dep. of Computer Science and Engineering School of Science Aalto University

2 Table of Contents Introduction Naming and Layering Control Plane Data Plane

3 Introduction

4 Motivation Why do I need screen for IRC session? Why Youtube video stops when I switch from 3G to WLAN? Why do I need to pinhole my NAT box to reach my home server? Why do I use SSH instead of telnet? Why do we have NFSv4? Why do we passwords for WLAN?

5 Identity-Locator Split Identity-locator split separates the who from where Application and transport layer sees the who Network layer sees where Benefits of id-loc split Realized e.g. in HIP, LISP, SHIM6 Isolates upper layers from network changes Useful for mobile devices Disadvantage: indirection introduces complexity

6 Benefits of Host Identity Protocol Protects and/or authenticates application data IPsec or S-RTP can be used IPv4 applications can talk to IPv6 apps Mobility and multihoming for transport layer Works in IPv4 and IPv6 networks End-to-end NAT traversal Connect to home server without pinholing Backwards compatible TCP, UDP, IPv4, IPv6, ICMP(v6)

7 Drawbacks of Host Identity Protocol Additional complexity New layer of indirection New namespace to manage (e.g. reverse look up) Security is transparent How does application or user know when connection is secured? TCP is still the bottleneck Suspending of laptop for hours disconnects TCP Is it too late? Generic architecture Specific solutions exist (MobileIP, VPN, SSH, etc)

8 HIP Standardization Work split to two working groups Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) RFC , RFC4423, RFC5338 Experimental track Moving to standards track (see bis drafts) Major change in RFC5201 Cryptoagility

9 Naming and Layering

10 Layering in Naming in HIP User Interface Application Layer Transport Layer HIP Layer Network Layer FQDN HIT (or LSI), port and proto HIT, port HI IP address

11 Non-HIP vs. HIP Socket Bindings P r o c e s s S o c k e t P r o c e s s S o c k e t E n d p o i n t E n d p o i n t H o s t I d e n t i t y D y n a m i c B i n d i n g L o c a t i o n I P a d d r e s s L o c a t i o n I P a d d r e s s

12 APIs Application Layer Application Socket Layer IPv4 API IPv6 API HIP API Transport Layer TCP UDP HIP Layer HIP Network Layer IPv4 IPv6 Link Layer Ethernet

13 Client-Side Name Look Up Example 1. getaddrinfo(hostname) DNS 2. hostname 3. <HIT, IP> Application 7. connect(hit) 6. HIT Resolver or DNS Proxy <HIT, IP> Socket Layer Transport HIP IPsec Network 8. base exchange Peer Host 9. ESP protected application data

14 Implemeting Name Translation #1 LD_PRELOAD getaddrinfo() #2 Local DNS Proxy #2a Snoop DNS requests with iptables #2b Substitute nameserver in /etc/resolv.conf #3 No changes to DNS interaction Implement lower in the stack (opp. mode) Implemented in a router (HIP proxy)

15 GUI / End-user Firewall An optional GUI can be used for managing all collecting HITs HIP is visible to the user (but not application) The GUI can prompt the user to accept incoming or outgoing connections Similar to end-user firewalls Screenshot from HIPL

16 Control Plane

17 I N I T I A T O R The Base Exchange I1 : trigg er base ex chan ge R 1 : p u z z le, D - H, k e y, sig n a tu r e I2 : puzzle solution, D -H, key, sig nature R 2 : sig n a tu r e R E S P O N D E R

18 Opportunistic Mode I1 sent to an unknown HIT Less secure than normal HIP Leap of faith (like in SSH) Subsequent connections can be cached Does not require public keys in DNS Convenient for Service registration HIP-aware applications HIP anycast Problematic for NAT traversal

19 Handover (UPDATE) M N C N 1 ) U P D : E S P _ I N F O, L O C A T O R, S E Q [, D - H ] 3 ) [ c r e a t e S A ] 2 ) U P D : E S P _ I N F O, A C K, S E Q, E _ R Q [, D - H ] 4 ) U P D : E S P _ I N F O, E _ R S 5 ) [ c r e a t e S A ]

20 Native NAT Traversal using HIP HIP Relay Server Initiator 1. base exchange with locators Responder N A T 3. connectivity tests 4. ESP N A T 2. pair up locators pair up locators 2. ESP Relay Server

21 Native NAT Traversal vs. Teredo Teredo pros Plenty of free Teredo servers available No changes to the HIP implementation Teredo cons Servers that do full relay cost Teredo requires an IPv6 application (without HIP) In windows, a socket option in the app Patented by Microsoft

22 IPv4-IPv6 Interoperability At the network layer Identity-locator split hides the underlying access technology from applications Cross-family handovers from IPv4 to IPv6 and vice versa are trivial (not available in MobileIP) At the application layer HITs for applications requesting IPv6 LSIs for applications requesting IPv4 IPv4 apps can talk with IPv6 apps!

23 Data Plane

24 HIP and IPsec Currently BEET mode ESP is the default HIP supports negotiating others (e.g S-RTP) Implemented in the Linux and BSD kernel Linux and Windows can use userspace impl. Public-key protected data plane (hiccups) Avoids the base exchange and use of IPsec Data protected with public-key signatures Switch to IPsec by sending an R1

25 HIP Proxy Proxy support on an intermediary host No changes at client and/or server side Similar to VPN gateways Can be implemented on different layers ARP level proxy (see Tofino security product) IP level proxy (supported by several HIP s/w) HTTP proxy (HIP between the client and proxy) Can use different naming or routing methods Normal or opportunistic mode Normal IP routing or overlays (e.g. Tofino)

26 Cool HIP Extensions HIP is too fat? RFID version of HIP HIP Diet Exchange PISA Wifi Sharing Mobile proxy Authenticates people sharing WLANs with HIP Handover delegation to a middlebox HIP-based Virtual Private LAN service Connects transparently separate networks

27 Questions? Miika Komu Documentation and software for HIPL: Interested in contributing? Contact us: Other two HIP implementations:

28 Literature 1/3 RFC RFC4423, Host Identity Protocol Architecture, Moskowitz et al, May 2006 RFC5338: Using the Host Identity Protocol with Legacy Applications, Henderson et al, Sep 2008 Integrating Mobility, Multi-homing and Security in a HIP way, Pekka Nikander et al, Feb 2003 Using DNS as an Access Protocol for Mapping Identifiers to Locators, Ponomarev et al, November 2007 RCF6317: Basic Socket Interface Extensions to Host Identity Protocol, Komu et al, Jul 2011

29 Literature 2/3 Overview and Comparison Criteria for Host Identity Protocol and Related Technologies, Koponen et al, Feb 2005 Leap-of-faith security is Enough for IP mobility, Komu et al, Jan 2009 HIP-based Virtual Private LAN, Henderson et al, Sep 2011 Enterprise Network Packet Filtering for Mobile Cryptographic Identities, Janne Lindqvist et al, June 2007 Native NAT Traversal Mode for HIP, Keränen et al, Jan 2011 Host Identity Protocol (HIP), Connectivity, Mobility, Multihoming, Security and Privacy over IPv4 and IPv6 Networks, Nikander et al, 2010

30 Literature 3/3 Secure and Efficient IPv4/IPv6 Handovers using Host-based Identifier-Locator Split, Varjonen et al, September 2009 RFC6078: HIP Immediate Carriage and Conveyance of Upper- Layer Protocol Signaling (hiccups), Nikander et al, Jan 2011 Host Identity Protocol Proxy, Salmela et al, Nov 2007 Backwards Compatibility Experimentation with Host Identity Protocol and Legacy Software and Networks, master thesis, Finez, Dec 2008 HIP Support for RFIDs, Urien et al, Nov 2010 HIP Diet Exchange, Moskowitz, Jan 2011 HIP-based Mobile Proxy, Melen et al, Aug 2009