RFC2385 - Protection of BGP Sessions via the TCP MD5 Signature Option

Network Working Group A. Heffernan

Request for Comments: 2385 cisco Systems

Category: Standards Track August 1998

Protection of BGP Sessions via the TCP MD5 Signature Option

Status of this Memo

This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the

Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for

improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet

Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state

and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

IESG Note

This document describes currrent existing practice for securing BGP

against certain simple attacks. It is understood to have security

weaknesses against concerted attacks.

Abstract

This memo describes a TCP extension to enhance security for BGP. It

defines a new TCP option for carrying an MD5 [RFC1321] digest in a

TCP segment. This digest acts like a signature for that segment,

incorporating information known only to the connection end points.

Since BGP uses TCP as its transport, using this option in the way

described in this paper significantly redUCes the danger from certain

security attacks on BGP.

1.0 Introduction

The primary motivation for this option is to allow BGP to protect

itself against the introduction of spoofed TCP segments into the

connection stream. Of particular concern are TCP resets.

To spoof a connection using the scheme described in this paper, an

attacker would not only have to guess TCP sequence numbers, but would

also have had to oBTain the passWord included in the MD5 digest.

This password never appears in the connection stream, and the actual

form of the password is up to the application. It could even change

during the lifetime of a particular connection so long as this change

was synchronized on both ends (although retransmission can become

problematical in some TCP implementations with changing passwords).

Finally, there is no negotiation for the use of this option in a

connection, rather it is purely a matter of site policy whether or

not its connections use the option.

2.0 Proposal

Every segment sent on a TCP connection to be protected against

spoofing will contain the 16-byte MD5 digest produced by applying the

MD5 algorithm to these items in the following order:

1. the TCP pseudo-header (in the order: source IP address,

destination IP address, zero-padded protocol number, and

segment length)

2. the TCP header, excluding options, and assuming a checksum of

zero

3. the TCP segment data (if any)

4. an independently-specified key or password, known to both TCPs

and presumably connection-specific

The header and pseudo-header are in network byte order. The nature

of the key is deliberately left unspecified, but it must be known by

both ends of the connection. A particular TCP implementation will

determine what the application may specify as the key.

Upon receiving a signed segment, the receiver must validate it by

calculating its own digest from the same data (using its own key) and

comparing the two digest. A failing comparison must result in the

segment being dropped and must not produce any response back to the

sender. Logging the failure is probably advisable.

Unlike other TCP extensions (e.g., the Window Scale option

[RFC1323]), the absence of the option in the SYN,ACK segment must not

cause the sender to disable its sending of signatures. This

negotiation is typically done to prevent some TCP implementations

from misbehaving upon receiving options in non-SYN segments. This is

not a problem for this option, since the SYN,ACK sent during

connection negotiation will not be signed and will thus be ignored.

The connection will never be made, and non-SYN segments with options

will never be sent. More importantly, the sending of signatures must

be under the complete control of the application, not at the mercy of

the remote host not understanding the option.

3.0 Syntax

The proposed option has the following format:

+---------+---------+-------------------+

Kind=19 Length=18 MD5 digest...

+---------+---------+-------------------+

+---------------------------------------+

+-------------------+-------------------+

+-------------------+

The MD5 digest is always 16 bytes in length, and the option would

appear in every segment of a connection.

4.0 Some Implications

4.1 Connectionless Resets

A connectionless reset will be ignored by the receiver of the reset,

since the originator of that reset does not know the key, and so

cannot generate the proper signature for the segment. This means,

for example, that connection attempts by a TCP which is generating

signatures to a port with no listener will time out instead of being

refused. Similarly, resets generated by a TCP in response to

segments sent on a stale connection will also be ignored.

Operationally this can be a problem since resets help BGP recover

quickly from peer crashes.

4.2 Performance

The performance hit in calculating digests may inhibit the use of

this option. Some measurements of a sample implementation showed

that on a 100 MHz R4600, generating a signature for simple ACK

segment took an average of 0.0268 ms, while generating a signature

for a data segment carrying 4096 bytes of data took 0.8776 ms on

average. These times would be applied to both the input and output

paths, with the input path also bearing the cost of a 16-byte

compare.

4.3 TCP Header Size

As with other options that are added to every segment, the size of

the MD5 option must be factored into the MSS offered to the other

side during connection negotiation. Specifically, the size of the

header to subtract from the MTU (whether it is the MTU of the

outgoing interface or IP's minimal MTU of 576 bytes) is now at least

18 bytes larger.

The total header size is also an issue. The TCP header specifies

where segment data starts with a 4-bit field which gives the total

size of the header (including options) in 32-byte words. This means

that the total size of the header plus option must be less than or

equal to 60 bytes -- this leaves 40 bytes for options.

As a concrete example, 4.4BSD defaults to sending window-scaling and

timestamp information for connections it initiates. The most loaded

segment will be the initial SYN packet to start the connection. With

MD5 signatures, the SYN packet will contain the following:

-- 4 bytes MSS option

-- 4 bytes window scale option (3 bytes padded to 4 in 4.4BSD)

-- 12 bytes for timestamp (4.4BSD pads the option as recommended

in RFC1323 Appendix A)

-- 18 bytes for MD5 digest

-- 2 bytes for end-of-option-list, to pad to a 32-bit boundary.

This sums to 40 bytes, which just makes it.

4.4 MD5 as a Hashing Algorithm

Since this memo was first issued (under a different title), the MD5

algorithm has been found to be vulnerable to collision search attacks

[Dobb], and is considered by some to be insufficiently strong for

this type of application.

This memo still specifies the MD5 algorithm, however, since the

option has already been deployed operationally, and there was no

"algorithm type" field defined to allow an upgrade using the same

option number. The original document did not specify a type field

since this would require at least one more byte, and it was felt at

the time that taking 19 bytes for the complete option (which would

probably be padded to 20 bytes in TCP implementations) would be too

much of a waste of the already limited option space.

This does not prevent the deployment of another similar option which

uses another hashing algorithm (like SHA-1). Also, if most

implementations pad the 18 byte option as defined to 20 bytes anyway,

it would be just as well to define a new option which contains an

algorithm type field.

This would need to be addressed in another document, however.

4.5 Key configuration

It should be noted that the key configuration mechanism of routers

may restrict the possible keys that may be used between peers. It is

strongly recommended that an implementation be able to support at

minimum a key composed of a string of printable ASCII of 80 bytes or

less, as this is current practice.

5.0 Security Considerations

This document defines a weak but currently practiced security

mechanism for BGP. It is anticipated that future work will provide

different stronger mechanisms for dealing with these issues.

6.0 References

[RFC1321] Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm," RFC1321,

April 1992.

[RFC1323] Jacobson, V., Braden, R., and D. Borman, "TCP Extensions

for High Performance", RFC1323, May 1992.

[Dobb] H. Dobbertin, "The Status of MD5 After a Recent Attack", RSA

Labs' CryptoBytes, Vol. 2 No. 2, Summer 1996.

http://www.rsa.com/rsalabs/pubs/cryptobytes.Html

Author's Address

Andy Heffernan

cisco Systems

170 West Tasman Drive

San Jose, CA 95134 USA

Phone: +1 408 526-8115

EMail: ahh@cisco.com

Full Copyright Statement

This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to

others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise eXPlain it

or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published

and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any

kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are

included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this

document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing

the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other

Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of

developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for

copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be

followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than

English.

The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be

revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

This document and the information contained herein is provided on an

"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING

TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING

BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION

HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF

MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.