Security Vulnerabilities of the Cisco IOS Implementation of the MPLS Transport Profile

Upul Jayasinghe, Sérgio Barreto Andrade, M. Popovic, T. Tesfay, J. Boudec
{"title":"Security Vulnerabilities of the Cisco IOS Implementation of the MPLS Transport Profile","authors":"Upul Jayasinghe, Sérgio Barreto Andrade, M. Popovic, T. Tesfay, J. Boudec","doi":"10.1145/2667190.2667197","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We are interested in the security of the MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP), in the context of smart-grid communication networks. The security guidelines of the MPLS-TP standards are written in a complex and indirect way, which led us to pose as hypothesis that vendor solutions might not implement them satisfactorily. To test this hypothesis, we investigated the Cisco implementation of two MPLS-TP OAM (Operations, Administration, and Maintenance) protocols: bidirectional forwarding detection (BFD), used to detect failures in label-switched paths (LSPs) and protection state coordination (PSC), used to coordinate protection switching. Critical smart grid applications, such as protection and control, rely on the protection switching feature controlled by BFD and PSC. We did find security issues with this implementation. We implemented a testbed with eight nodes that run the MPLS-TP enabled Cisco IOS; we demonstrated that an attacker who has access to only one cable (for two attacks) or two cables (for one attack) is able to harm the network at several points (e.g., disabling both working and protection LSPs). This occurred in spite of us implementing the security guidelines that are available from Cisco for IOS and MPLS-TP. The attacks use forged BFD or PSC messages, which induce a label-edge router (LER) into believing false information about an LSP. In one attack, the LER disables the operational LSP; in another attack, the LER continues to believe that a physically destroyed LSP is up and running; in yet another attack, both operational and backup LSPs are brought down. Our findings suggest that the MPLS-TP standard should be more explicit when it comes to security. For example, to thwart the attacks revealed here, it should mandate either hop by hop authentication (such as MACSec) at every node, or an ad-hoc authentication mechanism for BFD and PSC.","PeriodicalId":292964,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Smart Energy Grid Security","volume":"56 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Smart Energy Grid Security","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2667190.2667197","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

We are interested in the security of the MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP), in the context of smart-grid communication networks. The security guidelines of the MPLS-TP standards are written in a complex and indirect way, which led us to pose as hypothesis that vendor solutions might not implement them satisfactorily. To test this hypothesis, we investigated the Cisco implementation of two MPLS-TP OAM (Operations, Administration, and Maintenance) protocols: bidirectional forwarding detection (BFD), used to detect failures in label-switched paths (LSPs) and protection state coordination (PSC), used to coordinate protection switching. Critical smart grid applications, such as protection and control, rely on the protection switching feature controlled by BFD and PSC. We did find security issues with this implementation. We implemented a testbed with eight nodes that run the MPLS-TP enabled Cisco IOS; we demonstrated that an attacker who has access to only one cable (for two attacks) or two cables (for one attack) is able to harm the network at several points (e.g., disabling both working and protection LSPs). This occurred in spite of us implementing the security guidelines that are available from Cisco for IOS and MPLS-TP. The attacks use forged BFD or PSC messages, which induce a label-edge router (LER) into believing false information about an LSP. In one attack, the LER disables the operational LSP; in another attack, the LER continues to believe that a physically destroyed LSP is up and running; in yet another attack, both operational and backup LSPs are brought down. Our findings suggest that the MPLS-TP standard should be more explicit when it comes to security. For example, to thwart the attacks revealed here, it should mandate either hop by hop authentication (such as MACSec) at every node, or an ad-hoc authentication mechanism for BFD and PSC.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Cisco IOS实现MPLS传输配置文件的安全漏洞分析
我们对智能电网通信网络背景下MPLS传输配置文件(MPLS- tp)的安全性感兴趣。MPLS-TP标准的安全指导方针是以复杂和间接的方式编写的,这导致我们假设供应商解决方案可能无法令人满意地实现它们。为了验证这一假设,我们研究了Cisco实现的两种MPLS-TP OAM(操作、管理和维护)协议:双向转发检测(BFD),用于检测标签交换路径(lsp)中的故障,以及保护状态协调(PSC),用于协调保护交换。保护和控制等关键智能电网应用依赖于BFD和PSC控制的保护切换特性。我们确实在这个实现中发现了安全问题。我们实现了一个带有8个节点的测试平台,运行支持MPLS-TP的Cisco IOS;我们证明,攻击者只访问一条电缆(针对两次攻击)或两条电缆(针对一次攻击),就能够在几个点上损害网络(例如,禁用工作和保护lsp)。尽管我们为IOS和MPLS-TP实施了思科提供的安全指南,但还是发生了这种情况。这些攻击利用伪造的BFD或PSC消息,诱导LER (label-edge router)相信LSP的错误信息。在一次攻击中,LER关闭了运行LSP;在另一种攻击中,LER继续认为物理破坏的LSP已经启动并运行;在另一次攻击中,操作和备份lsp都被关闭。我们的研究结果表明,在安全性方面,MPLS-TP标准应该更加明确。例如,为了阻止这里揭示的攻击,它应该在每个节点上强制执行逐跳身份验证(例如MACSec),或者为BFD和PSC提供一个特别的身份验证机制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Privacy Enhanced Personal Services for Smart Grids eFuzz: A Fuzzer for DLMS/COSEM Electricity Meters Privacy-Friendly Planning of Energy Distribution in Smart Grids Targeted Attacks against Industrial Control Systems: Is the Power Industry Prepared? An Empirical Study of TCP Vulnerabilities in Critical Power System Devices
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1