The Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) system is designed to prevent hijacking of routes at their origin AS. If you don’t know how this system works (and it is likely you don’t, because there are only a few deployments in the world), you can review the way the system works by reading through this post here on rule11.tech.
The paper under review today examines how widely Route Origin Validation (ROV) based on the RPKI system has been deployed. The authors began by determining which Autonomous Systems (AS’) are definitely not deploying route origin validation. They did this by comparing the routes in the global RPKI database, which is synchronized among all the AS’ deploying the RPKI, to the routes in the global Default Free Zone (DFZ), as seen from 44 different route servers located throughout the world. In comparing these two, they found a set of routes which the RPKI system indicated should be originated from one AS, but were actually being originated from another AS in the default free zone.
Using this information, the researchers then looked for AS’ through which these routes with a mismatched RPKI and global table origin were advertised. If an AS accepted, and then readvertised, routes with mismatched RPKI and global table origins, they marked this AS as one that does not enforce route origin authentication.
A second, similar check was used to find the mirror set of AS’, those that do perform a route origin validation check. In this case, the authors traced the same type of route—those for which the origin AS the route is advertised with does not match the originating AS in the RPKI–and discovered some AS’ will not readvertise such a route. These AS’ apparently do perform a check for the correct route origin information.
The result is that only one of the 20 Internet Service Providers (ISPs) with the largest number of customers performs route origination validation on the routes they receive. Out of the largest 100 ISPs (again based on customer AS count), 22 appear to perform a route origin validation check. These are very low numbers.
To double check these numbers, the researchers surveyed a group of ISPs, and found that very few of them claim to check the routes they receive against the RPKI database. Why is this? When asked, these providers gave two reasons.
First, these providers are concerned about the problems involved with their connectivity being impacted in the case of an RPKI system failure. For instance, it would be easy enough for a company to become involved in a contract dispute with their naming authority, or with some other organization (two organizations claiming the same AS number, for instance). These kinds of cases could result in many years of litigation, causing a company to effectively lose their connectivity to the global ‘net during the process. This might seem like a minor fear for some, and there might be possible mitigations, but the ‘net is much more statically defined than many people realize, and many operators operate on a razor thin margin. The disruptions caused by such an event could simply put a company out of business.
Second, there is a general perception that the RPKI database is not exactly a “clean” representation of the real world. Since the database is essentially self-reported, there is little incentive to make changes to the database once something in the real world has changed (such as the transfer of address space between organization). It only takes a small amount of old, stale, or incorrect information to reduce the usefulness of this kind of public database. The authors address this concern by examining the contents of the RPKI, and find that it does, in fact, contain a good bit of incorrect information. They develop a tool to help administrators find this information, but ultimately people must use these kinds of tools.
The point of the paper is that the RPKI system, which is seen as crucial to the security of the global Internet, is not being widely used, and deployment does not appear to be increasing over time. One possible takeaway is the community needs to band together and deploy this technology. Another might be that the RPKI is not a viable solution to the problem at hand for various technical and social reasons—it might be time to start looking for another alternative for solving this problem.
It started with a lengthy email to the NANOG mailing list on 25 June 2018 — independent security researcher Ronald Guilmette detailed the suspicious routing activities of a company called Bitcanal, which he referred to as a “Hijack Factory”. —Doug Madory @APNIC
Reddit.com today disclosed that a data breach exposed some internal data, as well as email addresses and passwords for some Reddit users. As Web site breaches go, this one doesn’t seem too severe. What’s interesting about the incident is that it showcases once again why relying on mobile text messages (SMS) for two-factor authentication (2FA) can lull companies and end users into a false sense of security. @Krebs on Security
A story published here on July 12 about a new sextortion-based phishing scheme that invokes a real password used by each recipient has become the most-read piece on KrebsOnSecurity since this site launched in 2009. And with good reason — sex sells (the second most-read piece here was my 2015 scoop about the Ashley Madison hack). @Krebs on Security
Last month, 360 cyber crime experts from 95 countries gathered in Strasbourg to attend the Octopus Conference. The event sounds like something from James Bond, and when you look at the attendee list—which includes senior figures from the United States Department of Justice, national police forces across the world, and senior figures from companies like Facebook, Microsoft, Apple and Cloudflare—it’s easy to imagine a covert machination or two. —Katitza Rodriguez, Danny O’brien, And Maryant Fernandez @EFF
The Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) is a modern reimagination of the good ole’ Internet Routing Registry (IRR) system we have come to love and hate. The main advantage of RPKI is that consumers of the data can cryptographically verify whether they were the actual owners of the IP prefix that created a so-called RPKI Route Origin Authorization (ROA). —Job Snijders @APNIC
A new policy paper making the rounds in Congress and tech circles could signal the future of regulating big tech. The white paper, which was first obtained by Axios, was written by the office of Sen. Mark Warner (D., Va.), vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Warner is one of the leading Democrats investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election. —Charles Fain Lehman @The Free Beacon
In 2013, revelations made by German paper Der Spiegel showed that the NSA was taking advantage of certain backdoors in Cisco’s routers. Cisco denied accusations that it was working with the NSA to implement these backdoors. In 2014, a new undocumented backdoor was found in Cisco’s routers for small businesses, which could allow attackers to access user credentials and issue arbitrary commands with escalated privileges. —Lucian Armasu @Tom’s Hardware
A team of security researchers has discovered a new Spectre attack that can be launched over the network, unlike all other Spectre variants that require some form of local code execution on the target system. —Mohit Kumar @The Hacker News
Today, an update on some compelling projects at IETF 102. Ours guest are Jeff Tantsura and Russ White. We review the following projects to see what’s new and understand what problems they’re solving: RIFT (Routing In Fat Trees), BIER (Bit Indexed Explicit Replication), PPR (Preferred Path Routing), and YANG data modeling. We also look at the state of SD-WAN, which is a bit of the Wild West, to look at standards and interoperability efforts underway. @Packet Pushers