| ==Phrack Magazine== |
|
|
| Volume Seven, Issue Forty-Eight, File 14 of 18 |
|
|
|
|
| [ IP-spoofing Demystified ] |
| (Trust-Relationship Exploitation) |
|
|
|
|
| by daemon9 / route / infinity |
| for Phrack Magazine |
| June 1996 Guild Productions, kid |
|
|
| comments to route@infonexus.com |
|
|
|
|
| The purpose of this paper is to explain IP-spoofing to the |
| masses. It assumes little more than a working knowledge of Unix and |
| TCP/IP. Oh, and that yur not a moron... |
| IP-spoofing is complex technical attack that is made up of |
| several components. (In actuality, IP-spoofing is not the attack, but |
| a step in the attack. The attack is actually trust-relationship |
| exploitation. However, in this paper, IP-spoofing will refer to the |
| whole attack.) In this paper, I will explain the attack in detail, |
| including the relevant operating system and networking information. |
|
|
|
|
| [SECTION I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION] |
|
|
|
|
| --[ The Players ]-- |
|
|
|
|
| A: Target host |
| B: Trusted host |
| X: Unreachable host |
| Z: Attacking host |
| (1)2: Host 1 masquerading as host 2 |
|
|
|
|
| --[ The Figures ]-- |
|
|
|
|
| There are several figures in the paper and they are to be |
| interpreted as per the following example: |
|
|
| ick host a control host b |
| 1 A ---SYN---> B |
|
|
| tick: A tick of time. There is no distinction made as to *how* |
| much time passes between ticks, just that time passes. It's generally |
| not a great deal. |
| host a: A machine particpating in a TCP-based conversation. |
| control: This field shows any relevant control bits set in the TCP |
| header and the direction the data is flowing |
| host b: A machine particpating in a TCP-based conversation. |
|
|
| In this case, at the first refrenced point in time host a is sending |
| a TCP segment to host b with the SYN bit on. Unless stated, we are |
| generally not concerned with the data portion of the TCP segment. |
|
|
|
|
| --[ Trust Relationships ]-- |
|
|
|
|
| In the Unix world, trust can be given all too easily. Say you |
| have an account on machine A, and on machine B. To facilitate going |
| betwixt the two with a minimum amount of hassle, you want to setup a |
| full-duplex trust relationship between them. In your home directory |
| at A you create a .rhosts file: `echo "B username" > ~/.rhosts` In |
| your home directory at B you create a .rhosts file: `echo "A username" |
| > ~/.rhosts` (Alternately, root can setup similar rules in |
| /etc/hosts.equiv, the difference being that the rules are hostwide, |
| rather than just on an individual basis.) Now, you can use any of the |
| r* commands without that annoying hassle of password authentication. |
| These commands will allow address-based authentication, which will |
| grant or deny access based off of the IP address of the service |
| requestor. |
|
|
|
|
| --[ Rlogin ]-- |
|
|
|
|
| Rlogin is a simple client-server based protocol that uses TCP |
| as it's transport. Rlogin allows a user to login remotely from one |
| host to another, and, if the target machine trusts the other, rlogin |
| will allow the convienience of not prompting for a password. It will |
| instead have authenticated the client via the source IP address. So, |
| from our example above, we can use rlogin to remotely login to A from |
| B (or vice-versa) and not be prompted for a password. |
|
|
|
|
| --[ Internet Protocol ]-- |
|
|
|
|
| IP is the connectionless, unreliable network protocol in the |
| TCP/IP suite. It has two 32-bit header fields to hold address |
| information. IP is also the busiest of all the TCP/IP protocols as |
| almost all TCP/IP traffic is encapsulated in IP datagrams. IP's job |
| is to route packets around the network. It provides no mechanism for |
| reliability or accountability, for that, it relies on the upper |
| layers. IP simply sends out datagrams and hopes they make it intact. |
| If they don't, IP can try to send an ICMP error message back to the |
| source, however this packet can get lost as well. (ICMP is Internet |
| Control Message Protocol and it is used to relay network conditions |
| and different errors to IP and the other layers.) IP has no means to |
| guarantee delivery. Since IP is connectionless, it does not maintain |
| any connection state information. Each IP datagram is sent out without |
| regard to the last one or the next one. This, along with the fact that |
| it is trivial to modify the IP stack to allow an arbitrarily choosen IP |
| address in the source (and destination) fields make IP easily subvertable. |
|
|
|
|
| --[ Transmission Control Protocol ]-- |
|
|
|
|
| TCP is the connection-oriented, reliable transport protocol |
| in the TCP/IP suite. Connection-oriented simply means that the two |
| hosts participating in a discussion must first establish a connection |
| before data may change hands. Reliability is provided in a number of |
| ways but the only two we are concerned with are data sequencing and |
| acknowledgement. TCP assigns sequence numbers to every segment and |
| acknowledges any and all data segments recieved from the other end. |
| (ACK's consume a sequence number, but are not themselves ACK'd.) |
| This reliability makes TCP harder to fool than IP. |
|
|
|
|
| --[ Sequence Numbers, Acknowledgements and other flags ]-- |
|
|
|
|
| Since TCP is reliable, it must be able to recover from |
| lost, duplicated, or out-of-order data. By assigning a sequence |
| number to every byte transfered, and requiring an acknowledgement from |
| the other end upon receipt, TCP can guarantee reliable delivery. The |
| receiving end uses the sequence numbers to ensure proper ordering of |
| the data and to eliminate duplicate data bytes. |
| TCP sequence numbers can simply be thought of as 32-bit |
| counters. They range from 0 to 4,294,967,295. Every byte of |
| data exchanged across a TCP connection (along with certain flags) |
| is sequenced. The sequence number field in the TCP header will |
| contain the sequence number of the *first* byte of data in the |
| TCP segment. The acknowledgement number field in the TCP header |
| holds the value of next *expected* sequence number, and also |
| acknowledges *all* data up through this ACK number minus one. |
| TCP uses the concept of window advertisement for flow |
| control. It uses a sliding window to tell the other end how much |
| data it can buffer. Since the window size is 16-bits a receiving TCP |
| can advertise up to a maximum of 65535 bytes. Window advertisement |
| can be thought of an advertisment from one TCP to the other of how |
| high acceptable sequence numbers can be. |
| Other TCP header flags of note are RST (reset), PSH (push) |
| and FIN (finish). If a RST is received, the connection is |
| immediately torn down. RSTs are normally sent when one end |
| receives a segment that just doesn't jive with current connection |
| (we will encounter an example below). The PSH flag tells the |
| reciever to pass all the data is has queued to the aplication, as |
| soon as possible. The FIN flag is the way an application begins a |
| graceful close of a connection (connection termination is a 4-way |
| process). When one end recieves a FIN, it ACKs it, and does not |
| expect to receive any more data (sending is still possible, however). |
|
|
|
|
| --[ TCP Connection Establishment ]-- |
|
|
|
|
| In order to exchange data using TCP, hosts must establish a |
| a connection. TCP establishes a connection in a 3 step process called |
| the 3-way handshake. If machine A is running an rlogin client and |
| wishes to conect to an rlogin daemon on machine B, the process is as |
| follows: |
|
|
| fig(1) |
|
|
| 1 A ---SYN---> B |
|
|
| 2 A <---SYN/ACK--- B |
|
|
| 3 A ---ACK---> B |
|
|
|
|
| At (1) the client is telling the server that it wants a connection. |
| This is the SYN flag's only purpose. The client is telling the |
| server that the sequence number field is valid, and should be checked. |
| The client will set the sequence number field in the TCP header to |
| it's ISN (initial sequence number). The server, upon receiving this |
| segment (2) will respond with it's own ISN (therefore the SYN flag is |
| on) and an ACKnowledgement of the clients first segment (which is the |
| client's ISN+1). The client then ACK's the server's ISN (3). Now, |
| data transfer may take place. |
|
|
|
|
| --[ The ISN and Sequence Number Incrementation ]-- |
|
|
|
|
| It is important to understand how sequence numbers are |
| initially choosen, and how they change with respect to time. The |
| initial sequence number when a host is bootstraped is initialized |
| to 1. (TCP actually calls this variable 'tcp_iss' as it is the initial |
| *send* sequence number. The other sequence number variable, |
| 'tcp_irs' is the initial *receive* sequence number and is learned |
| during the 3-way connection establishment. We are not going to worry |
| about the distinction.) This practice is wrong, and is acknowledged |
| as so in a comment the tcp_init() function where it appears. The ISN |
| is incremented by 128,000 every second, which causes the 32-bit ISN |
| counter to wrap every 9.32 hours if no connections occur. However, |
| each time a connect() is issued, the counter is incremented by |
| 64,000. |
| One important reason behind this predictibility is to |
| minimize the chance that data from an older stale incarnation |
| (that is, from the same 4-tuple of the local and remote |
| IP-addresses TCP ports) of the current connection could arrive |
| and foul things up. The concept of the 2MSL wait time applies |
| here, but is beyond the scope of this paper. If sequence |
| numbers were choosen at random when a connection arrived, no |
| guarantees could be made that the sequence numbers would be different |
| from a previous incarnation. If some data that was stuck in a |
| routing loop somewhere finally freed itself and wandered into the new |
| incarnation of it's old connection, it could really foul things up. |
|
|
|
|
| --[ Ports ]-- |
|
|
|
|
| To grant simultaneous access to the TCP module, TCP provides |
| a user interface called a port. Ports are used by the kernel to |
| identify network processes. These are strictly transport layer |
| entities (that is to say that IP could care less about them). |
| Together with an IP address, a TCP port provides provides an endpoint |
| for network communications. In fact, at any given moment *all* |
| Internet connections can be described by 4 numbers: the source IP |
| address and source port and the destination IP address and destination |
| port. Servers are bound to 'well-known' ports so that they may be |
| located on a standard port on different systems. For example, the |
| rlogin daemon sits on TCP port 513. |
|
|
|
|
| [SECTION II. THE ATTACK] |
|
|
|
|
| ...The devil finds work for idle hands.... |
|
|
|
|
| --[ Briefly... ]-- |
|
|
|
|
| IP-spoofing consists of several steps, which I will |
| briefly outline here, then explain in detail. First, the target host |
| is choosen. Next, a pattern of trust is discovered, along with a |
| trusted host. The trusted host is then disabled, and the target's TCP |
| sequence numbers are sampled. The trusted host is impersonated, the |
| sequence numbers guessed, and a connection attempt is made to a |
| service that only requires address-based authentication. If |
| successful, the attacker executes a simple command to leave a |
| backdoor. |
|
|
|
|
| --[ Needful Things ]-- |
|
|
|
|
| There are a couple of things one needs to wage this attack: |
|
|
| (1) brain, mind, or other thinking device |
| (1) target host |
| (1) trusted host |
| (1) attacking host (with root access) |
| (1) IP-spoofing software |
|
|
| Generally the attack is made from the root account on the attacking |
| host against the root account on the target. If the attacker is |
| going to all this trouble, it would be stupid not to go for root. |
| (Since root access is needed to wage the attack, this should not |
| be an issue.) |
|
|
|
|
| --[ IP-Spoofing is a 'Blind Attack' ]-- |
|
|
|
|
| One often overlooked, but critical factor in IP-spoofing |
| is the fact that the attack is blind. The attacker is going to be |
| taking over the identity of a trusted host in order to subvert the |
| security of the target host. The trusted host is disabled using the |
| method described below. As far as the target knows, it is carrying on |
| a conversation with a trusted pal. In reality, the attacker is |
| sitting off in some dark corner of the Internet, forging packets |
| puportedly from this trusted host while it is locked up in a denial |
| of service battle. The IP datagrams sent with the forged IP-address |
| reach the target fine (recall that IP is a connectionless-oriented |
| protocol-- each datagram is sent without regard for the other end) |
| but the datagrams the target sends back (destined for the trusted |
| host) end up in the bit-bucket. The attacker never sees them. The |
| intervening routers know where the datagrams are supposed to go. They |
| are supposed to go the trusted host. As far as the network layer is |
| concerned, this is where they originally came from, and this is where |
| responses should go. Of course once the datagrams are routed there, |
| and the information is demultiplexed up the protocol stack, and |
| reaches TCP, it is discarded (the trusted host's TCP cannot respond-- |
| see below). So the attacker has to be smart and *know* what was sent, |
| and *know* what reponse the server is looking for. The attacker |
| cannot see what the target host sends, but she can *predict* what it |
| will send; that coupled with the knowledge of what it *will* send, |
| allows the attacker to work around this blindness. |
|
|
|
|
| --[ Patterns of Trust ]-- |
|
|
|
|
| After a target is choosen the attacker must determine the |
| patterns of trust (for the sake of argument, we are going to assume |
| the target host *does* in fact trust somebody. If it didn't, the |
| attack would end here). Figuring out who a host trusts may or may |
| not be easy. A 'showmount -e' may show where filesystems are |
| exported, and rpcinfo can give out valuable information as well. |
| If enough background information is known about the host, it should |
| not be too difficult. If all else fails, trying neighboring IP |
| addresses in a brute force effort may be a viable option. |
|
|
|
|
| --[ Trusted Host Disabling Using the Flood of Sins ]-- |
|
|
|
|
| Once the trusted host is found, it must be disabled. Since |
| the attacker is going to impersonate it, she must make sure this host |
| cannot receive any network traffic and foul things up. There are |
| many ways of doing this, the one I am going to discuss is TCP SYN |
| flooding. |
| A TCP connection is initiated with a client issuing a |
| request to a server with the SYN flag on in the TCP header. Normally |
| the server will issue a SYN/ACK back to the client identified by the |
| 32-bit source address in the IP header. The client will then send an |
| ACK to the server (as we saw in figure 1 above) and data transfer |
| can commence. There is an upper limit of how many concurrent SYN |
| requests TCP can process for a given socket, however. This limit |
| is called the backlog, and it is the length of the queue where |
| incoming (as yet incomplete) connections are kept. This queue limit |
| applies to both the number of imcomplete connections (the 3-way |
| handshake is not complete) and the number of completed connections |
| that have not been pulled from the queue by the application by way of |
| the accept() system call. If this backlog limit is reached, TCP will |
| silently discard all incoming SYN requests until the pending |
| connections can be dealt with. Therein lies the attack. |
| The attacking host sends several SYN requests to the TCP port |
| she desires disabled. The attacking host also must make sure that |
| the source IP-address is spoofed to be that of another, currently |
| unreachable host (the target TCP will be sending it's response to |
| this address. (IP may inform TCP that the host is unreachable, |
| but TCP considers these errors to be transient and leaves the |
| resolution of them up to IP (reroute the packets, etc) effectively |
| ignoring them.) The IP-address must be unreachable because the |
| attacker does not want any host to recieve the SYN/ACKs that will be |
| coming from the target TCP (this would result in a RST being sent to |
| the target TCP, which would foil our attack). The process is as |
| follows: |
|
|
| fig(2) |
|
|
| 1 Z(x) ---SYN---> B |
|
|
| Z(x) ---SYN---> B |
|
|
| Z(x) ---SYN---> B |
|
|
| Z(x) ---SYN---> B |
|
|
| Z(x) ---SYN---> B |
|
|
| ... |
|
|
| 2 X <---SYN/ACK--- B |
|
|
| X <---SYN/ACK--- B |
|
|
| ... |
|
|
| 3 X <---RST--- B |
|
|
|
|
| At (1) the attacking host sends a multitude of SYN requests to the |
| target (remember the target in this phase of the attack is the |
| trusted host) to fill it's backlog queue with pending connections. |
| (2) The target responds with SYN/ACKs to what it believes is the |
| source of the incoming SYNs. During this time all further requests |
| to this TCP port will be ignored. |
| Different TCP implementations have different backlog sizes. |
| BSD generally has a backlog of 5 (Linux has a backlog of 6). There |
| is also a 'grace' margin of 3/2. That is, TCP will allow up to |
| backlog*3/2+1 connections. This will allow a socket one connection |
| even if it calls listen with a backlog of 0. |
|
|
| AuthNote: [For a much more in-depth treatment of TCP SYN |
| flooding, see my definitive paper on the subject. It covers the |
| whole process in detail, in both theory, and practice. There is |
| robust working code, a statistical analysis, and a legnthy paper. |
| Look for it in issue 49 of Phrack. -daemon9 6/96] |
|
|
|
|
| --[ Sequence Number Sampling and Prediction ]-- |
|
|
|
|
| Now the attacker needs to get an idea of where in the 32-bit |
| sequence number space the target's TCP is. The attacker connects to |
| a TCP port on the target (SMTP is a good choice) just prior to launching |
| the attack and completes the three-way handshake. The process is |
| exactly the same as fig(1), except that the attacker will save the |
| value of the ISN sent by the target host. Often times, this process is |
| repeated several times and the final ISN sent is stored. The attacker |
| needs to get an idea of what the RTT (round-trip time) from the target |
| to her host is like. (The process can be repeated several times, and an |
| average of the RTT's is calculated.) The RTT is necessary in being |
| able to accuratly predict the next ISN. The attacker has the baseline |
| (the last ISN sent) and knows how the sequence numbers are incremented |
| (128,000/second and 64,000 per connect) and now has a good idea of |
| how long it will take an IP datagram to travel across the Internet to |
| reach the target (approximately half the RTT, as most times the |
| routes are symmetrical). After the attacker has this information, she |
| immediately proceeds to the next phase of the attack (if another TCP |
| connection were to arrive on any port of the target before the |
| attacker was able to continue the attack, the ISN predicted by the |
| attacker would be off by 64,000 of what was predicted). |
| When the spoofed segment makes it's way to the target, |
| several different things may happen depending on the accuracy of |
| the attacker's prediction: |
| - If the sequence number is EXACTly where the receiving TCP expects |
| it to be, the incoming data will be placed on the next available |
| position in the receive buffer. |
| - If the sequence number is LESS than the expected value the data |
| byte is considered a retransmission, and is discarded. |
| - If the sequence number is GREATER than the expected value but |
| still within the bounds of the receive window, the data byte is |
| considered to be a future byte, and is held by TCP, pending the |
| arrival of the other missing bytes. If a segment arrives with a |
| sequence number GREATER than the expected value and NOT within the |
| bounds of the receive window the segment is dropped, and TCP will |
| send a segment back with the *expected* sequence number. |
|
|
|
|
| --[ Subversion... ]-- |
|
|
|
|
| Here is where the main thrust of the attack begins: |
|
|
| fig(3) |
|
|
| 1 Z(b) ---SYN---> A |
|
|
| 2 B <---SYN/ACK--- A |
|
|
| 3 Z(b) ---ACK---> A |
|
|
| 4 Z(b) ---PSH---> A |
|
|
| [...] |
|
|
|
|
| The attacking host spoofs her IP address to be that of the trusted |
| host (which should still be in the death-throes of the D.O.S. attack) |
| and sends it's connection request to port 513 on the target (1). At |
| (2), the target responds to the spoofed connection request with a |
| SYN/ACK, which will make it's way to the trusted host (which, if it |
| *could* process the incoming TCP segment, it would consider it an |
| error, and immediately send a RST to the target). If everything goes |
| according to plan, the SYN/ACK will be dropped by the gagged trusted |
| host. After (1), the attacker must back off for a bit to give the |
| target ample time to send the SYN/ACK (the attacker cannot see this |
| segment). Then, at (3) the attacker sends an ACK to the target with |
| the predicted sequence number (plus one, because we're ACKing it). |
| If the attacker is correct in her prediction, the target will accept |
| the ACK. The target is compromised and data transfer can |
| commence (4). |
| Generally, after compromise, the attacker will insert a |
| backdoor into the system that will allow a simpler way of intrusion. |
| (Often a `cat + + >> ~/.rhosts` is done. This is a good idea for |
| several reasons: it is quick, allows for simple re-entry, and is not |
| interactive. Remember the attacker cannot see any traffic coming from |
| the target, so any reponses are sent off into oblivion.) |
|
|
|
|
| --[ Why it Works ]-- |
|
|
|
|
| IP-Spoofing works because trusted services only rely on |
| network address based authentication. Since IP is easily duped, |
| address forgery is not difficult. The hardest part of the attck is |
| in the sequence number prediction, because that is where the guesswork |
| comes into play. Reduce unknowns and guesswork to a minimum, and |
| the attack has a better chance of suceeding. Even a machine that |
| wraps all it's incoming TCP bound connections with Wietse Venema's TCP |
| wrappers, is still vulnerable to the attack. TCP wrappers rely on a |
| hostname or an IP address for authentication... |
|
|
|
|
| [SECTION III. PREVENTITIVE MEASURES] |
|
|
|
|
| ...A stich in time, saves nine... |
|
|
|
|
| --[ Be Un-trusting and Un-trustworthy ]-- |
|
|
|
|
| One easy solution to prevent this attack is not to rely |
| on address-based authentication. Disable all the r* commands, |
| remove all .rhosts files and empty out the /etc/hosts.equiv file. |
| This will force all users to use other means of remote access |
| (telnet, ssh, skey, etc). |
|
|
|
|
| --[ Packet Filtering ]-- |
|
|
|
|
| If your site has a direct connect to the Internet, you |
| can use your router to help you out. First make sure only hosts |
| on your internal LAN can particpate in trust-relationships (no |
| internal host should trust a host outside the LAN). Then simply |
| filter out *all* traffic from the outside (the Internet) that |
| puports to come from the inside (the LAN). |
|
|
|
|
| --[ Cryptographic Methods ]-- |
|
|
|
|
| An obvious method to deter IP-spoofing is to require |
| all network traffic to be encrypted and/or authenticated. While |
| several solutions exist, it will be a while before such measures are |
| deployed as defacto standards. |
|
|
|
|
| --[ Initial Sequence Number Randomizing ]-- |
|
|
|
|
| Since the sequence numbers are not choosen randomly (or |
| incremented randomly) this attack works. Bellovin describes a |
| fix for TCP that involves partitioning the sequence number space. |
| Each connection would have it's own seperate sequence number space. |
| The sequence numbers would still be incremented as before, however, |
| there would be no obvious or implied relationship between the |
| numbering in these spaces. Suggested is the following formula: |
|
|
| ISN=M+F(localhost,localport,remotehost,remoteport) |
|
|
| Where M is the 4 microsecond timer and F is a cryptographic hash. |
| F must not be computable from the outside or the attacker could |
| still guess sequence numbers. Bellovin suggests F be a hash of |
| the connection-id and a secret vector (a random number, or a host |
| related secret combined with the machine's boot time). |
|
|
|
|
| [SECTION IV. SOURCES] |
|
|
|
|
| -Books: TCP/IP Illustrated vols. I, II & III |
| -RFCs: 793, 1825, 1948 |
| -People: Richard W. Stevens, and the users of the |
| Information Nexus for proofreading |
| -Sourcecode: rbone, mendax, SYNflood |
|
|
|
|
| This paper made possible by a grant from the Guild Corporation. |
|
|